What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

And Then There Were None

It was referenced in the movie, which added to homage feel as SCREAM did it for the slasher genre.

Tonight I was in the mood for a good stinker, and my choice didn't disappoint.

I'm pretty sure I had already watched it on rental VHS and at first I was taken aback by the excellent picture quality of this streaming version. Not that it helped to elevate this film from its rock-bottom narrative.
So, what went wrong?

1. No atmosphere, it has that sunshiny glow of an early 90s TV movie (which in itself can be very appealing, just not for horror movies)

2. There's some serious over-acting going on, but that's the good part. Most actors seem to say "I showed up, didn't I?" but it's probably down to somewhat inexperienced actors left to their own devices. This is no excuse for Terence Knox, one of the leads, as he constantly poses before saying his lines - thus out-corning the corn.

3. What horror needs more than danger is fear, and there is absolutely none of it COTC II. In the first movie, the corn fields managed to represent something sinister and American gothic, but in this sequel there's no sense of drama or horror connected to a certain place.

4. A last-minute plot twist that didn't have time to go anywhere apart from putting two characters in a dangerous situation, including the obligatory native Indian with his obligatory wisdom about everything.
They also had the audacity to end the movie with a vision of the Indian's spirit as to give the movie some kind of...ugh....feeling? depth?

On the upside, it has some nice eye candy.

He's seriously under-used.


She's not part of the plot, she's just a beautiful, nice girl.

This was perfectly awful and I wonder how it compares to COTC III

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Dentist On The Job (1961)

Somehow I've gone my entire life without watching this. At least I think I have. It feels familiar, but that could be entirely due to its Carry On vibes.

It looks, sounds and feels exactly like a Carry On film of the era, and has a number of familiar faces from that series: Bob Monkhouse woos Shirley Eaton again. Kenneth Connor mugs away wonderfully. Eric Barker throws his authority around in a dual role. Richard Wattis simpers and sneers snootily. Even Charles Hawtrey has a cameo (surprisingly, it's the film's very first scene).

The theme and score sounds very familiar to those familiar with Bruce Montgomery's Carry On scores. Except this isn't Bruce Montgomery. It's not even Eric Rogers. I was shocked to get to the credit and discover it's composer Ken Jones (unrelated to the Liverpudlian actor of the same name). And the film isn't from the producer/director team of Peter Rogers and Gerald Thomas. Even so, it feels very much like Carry On Drilling.

With this in mind, the humour is exactly what you'd expect. It clicked with me after a particular groaner Monkhouse gave when Barker's character questioned his integrity:

What's the matter with you, man. Have you no feeling for ethics?

No sir. I was born in thuthex.

Perhaps because of my lack of familiarity with this film, Hawtrey's usually predictable schtick seems a little fresher and funnier than usual here and I was able to appreciate him all over again as the little pharmacist, overwhelmed by displays of the toothpaste brand a big organisation forces him to peddle. He clearly does a bit of physical comedy, getting knocked into counters by a giant toothpaste tube. There's a really funny line to a customer who has refused to buy the toothpaste he's desperately trying to get rid of, where there's a close up of his dour face as he grimly sends his regards for the departing customer's wife's speedy recovery, with it very apparent that he's thinking just the opposite.

It's one of those perfect rainy Sunday afternoon films, but the fact I watched it on a Saturday evening didn't spoil my enjoyment one bit.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse (2018)

I've been meaning to watch this film for some time. It was a spontaneous watch and I loved it.

The colours, the movement, the pace, transitions, the sound and the inventiveness is stunning and feed into the the comic book vibe perfectly. Different animation styles are woven into the film such as anime to create the Peni Parker version of Spider-man and a Looney Tunes style cartoon to create the Peter Porker version of Spider-man. It's so creative and genuinely funny is places. The film is also exciting in a way that I didn't expect to find in a cartoon. I absolutely loved it.

This says exactly how I felt about it.

I loved the way the different universes were shown and explained. It felt non-linear and unexpected. I was a little thrown by Peter Parker being blonde and blue eyed, but the reason for this only became apparent as it went along.

In addition, I enjoyed all the little nods and references to Spider-Man creative team from different eras. Steve Ditko was one of the contacts in Miles's phone address book. A diner that he walked past included Romita in its name. Miles Morales create Brian Michael Bendis's name appeared in both phone log and street furniture. Then there was Stan Lee's cameo.

Even as a kid, I thought Spider-Ham was the stupidest thing, but even that kind of worked here as a taste of the surreal.

There were some familiar names, including some from other Marvel projects. A post-Sabretooth Liev Schreiber plays Kingpin. A pre-WandaVision Kathryn Hahn makes a terrific alternative Doctor Octopus. Nicholas Cage and Chris Pine play alternative versions of Spider-Man (respectively, Spider-Man Noir and blonde Peter Parker). While Lily Tomlin is great as a slightly edgier Aunt May (edgier than the traditional 616 version, but still very recognisable compared with the hot younger MCU version, this is a very acceptable rendition of a more contemporary May. For me, this is far preferable to the Marisa Tomei interpretation).

I was most intrigued by Spider-Gwen. It could have gone either way with me. When I first heard about the character some years ago, I thought both the name and concept was plain daft. Gwen is a character who died decades earlier and needed to stay dead if that story was to retain its impact and value. Plus I'm incredibly fond of the original 616 Spider-Woman, Jessica Drew.

However, in the context of an alternative universe version of Spider-Man, I like this one a lot. The costume is certainly very visually appealing (something that was undeniable to me even when I struggled with the concept of the character).

The whole multiverse thing is now being overdone by the main MCU, and I don't find that very appealing as a base for the entire main series. However, the concept works much better in isolation where it doesn't detract from the reality of the main series. And this ticks that box nicely.

The sequel is due next year, and I'm already mildly looking forward to that.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

Daleks Invasion Earth 2150 AD last night as a tribute to Bernard Cribbins.

 

[Angela Channing]

The Phantom of The Open (2021)

Mark Rylance is slowly becoming one of my favourite current actors, he consistently put in terrific performance in a wide range of different roles. Here he plays Maurice Flitcroft, an eccentric golf enthusiast whose ambition is to play in the British Open. Somehow he manages to gain entry to the tournament and subsequently plays the worst round ever in the British Open. In doing so he becomes a bit of an icon for people who keep trying and never give up no matter how bad they are at something. The story is told with a lot of humour and affection for the characters it depicts and the film is heart-warming, enjoyable and dare I say it, a bit moving.

 

[Alexis Colby Carrington]

Thor: Love and Thunder

 

[DallasFanForever]

The Gray Man (2022)

Saw it last night and I’m still not sure what to make of it to be honest. Tons of action, great fight scenes, a lot of good humor and quick wit. I found it a little slow in the beginning but eventually it took off. Without giving anything away though, I found the end rather predictable and a little disappointing. Worth checking out but my advice is have low expectations.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The special effects are terrible, although it has one very suprising death scene. Move over Final Destination.
As a sequel it's more interesting than COTC II but at the same time it's hard to connect it with the cult of the original movie, or why that cult continues to exist in the first place.
I liked the mini cornfield.

After this I watched the first movie - which I used to like - and I noticed that the whole cult manipulation thing doesn't mix with the supernatural. After all, it only proves that the evil little preacher was right. Probably one of the worst ideas for a franchise.

 

[Seaviewer]

The Gray Man (2022)

Saw it last night and I’m still not sure what to make of it to be honest. Tons of action, great fight scenes, a lot of good humor and quick wit. I found it a little slow in the beginning but eventually it took off. Without giving anything away though, I found the end rather predictable and a little disappointing. Worth checking out but my advice is have low expectations.

Your review is consistent with a radio host I was listening to this afternoon who said it was full of action move cliches.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

This has been on my viewing bucket list for ages, and means that I've now watched every Spider-Man film from Sam Raimi's original to Far From Home (I've still to watch No Way Home).

I finally watched the first Andrew Garfield film a little over eight months ago, however in that time I've watched the entire MCU, including most Spider-Man appearances. This gave me doubts that I'd enjoy the second film due to switching from one reality to another. It didn't help that I knew ASM2 was poorly received. Or perhaps it did, since I went in with reasonably low expectations.

I was dreading Jamie Foxx's version of Electro since he's so far removed from the character I grew up reading, but found him tolerable enough. The character as portrayed here felt very DC. He initially reminded me of Richard Pryor in Superman III, and his origin - starting out as a slightly goofy underdog-type character and ending up as the Big Bad - strongly evoked Selena Kyle/Edward Nigma/Pamela Isley in the three Nineties Batman sequels. It's far from terrible, but feels dated and poorly thought out. The electrocution and aftermath was nicely dark, but once he began glowing it just looked like a video game. The character's aesthetic was too effects-heavy, and the effects weren't top-notch a lot of the time, though mercifully he looked less like Arnie's Mr Freeze than I'd feared he might.

Andrew Garfield is great once again. Having had a comprehensive overview of all three Spider-Men, I maintain that he's the best actor of the three. Not that this necessarily makes him the best Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but there's certainly a strong case for that here. Emma Stone is very engaging indeed as Gwen. Gwen's an interesting choice, I think, since for me she's very much a character frozen in the Silver Age of comics (which many say actually ended with her death).

Sally Field is very much Sally Field. Mileage may vary on how good a thing this is. She gets one of her typically overwrought shrill monologues (contractual, I shouldn't wonder) when May is distressed and dumps all her burdens on Peter. It's a very May Parker thing to do, but I never really see May in her. I could easily be watching Steel Magnolias.

The backstory with Peter's parents plays completely against the very premise of Peter's character as an ordinary kid from an ordinary background developing extraordinary powers. I appreciate that the films needed to go in a different direction, following so soon from the Raimi trilogy, and I suppose this is simply an outcome of this. The actors certainly help sell it, and perhaps it was worth all the daft revelations for that wonderfully atmospheric scene where Peter discovers the abandoned subway station.

In fact all the new stuff with the secret espionage is, for my money, preferable to the film doing its own spin on scenarios that are familiar not just from the comics but from earlier films. In these areas, the film is more obliged to go in a different direction, so Harry becoming the Green Goblin is given a new spin and it's diluted many times over, not just because it's been so recently filmed, but also because we don't see Norman as the Goblin. As Harry, Dane DeHaan is fine. The arc with him trying to get hold of Spider-Man's radioactive blood in a bid to cure him is at least somewhat engaging. As the Goblin, it's a mess. Harry was the Goblin for about five minutes in the comics and the screentime given the character in the various film series is very disproportionate. I wouldn't mind if it were done well, and can only hope the MCU's inevitable spin on it will be more authentic an engaging.

The tragedy at the film's climax is again hampered by it position as a reboot. All the pieces are in different places and so the cinematic telling of one of the most important stories in comics history ends up being done in a way that doesn't ring true.

Seeing the trademarks of various Spider-Man villains in the secret Oscorp lab - the Vulture's wings, Doctor Octopus's tentacles, the Rhino suit - is mildly tantalising. Clearly this was planned to be a world where each villain could be pretty much made to order by Oscorp, which has a sense to it (even if the concept is a bit of a cheat in the same way as mutants - past their initial concept - are an easy, lazy way of having a ready-made origin without having to get truly creative). This is a world where the Sinister Six could come together quickly which could have been interesting. All in all, though, it's the villains that let this film down.

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone make up for this, though, and while it's not Spidey's finest cinematic moment, it's not really a bad film.

 

[Angela Channing]

Andrew Garfield is great once again. Having had a comprehensive overview of all three Spider-Men, I maintain that he's the best actor of the three.

I think he's an extremely talented actor. I've seen him in quite a few things recently (Tick Tick... Boom, The Eyes of Tammy Faye and I've started watching Under The Banner of Heaven) and he gives a great performance every time in a wide range of roles.

It's hard to say who is the best Spiderman because opinions are influenced by how highly you rate the individual Spiderman films but I completely agree he is the best actor in the role.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I think he's an extremely talented actor. I've seen him in quite a few things recently (Tick Tick... Boom, The Eyes of Tammy Faye and I've started watching Under The Banner of Heaven) and he gives a great performance every time in a wide range of roles.

Coincidentally, I very nearly started watching The Red Riding Trilogy this week, but I copped out because of how grim and violent the films sounded. There are times when I can cope with that kind of material, and times I can't, and this wasn't the right time for me. I will catch up with it at some point.

It's hard to say who is the best Spiderman because opinions are influenced by how highly you rate the individual Spiderman films

Strangely, while Raimi's are probably my preferred films overall, Tobey Maguire is also the actor who I struggle to fully accept as Peter Parker.

Even more confusingly, I really like Maguire's Spider-Man, despite my feelings about him as Peter, and so I'd say the duality of the character makes it difficult to get the balance right.

There are also the aesthetics. Tom Holland looks pretty perfect as both Peter and Spidey, but I find the babbling over-enthusiasm and the whiny head voice he uses supremely annoying.

Garfield seems to strike a balance somewhere in the middle that works for me, despite the generally poorer material.

As I said in the Who Played Spidey The Best? thread, I feel we have yet to see the definitive portrayal, but I'm sure it will come.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Sapphires (2012)

This has been on my viewing radar for quite some years: probably since 2016 when I stumbled upon the soundtrack which is a favourite of mine.

Inspired by a true story, with the original play written by Tony Briggs, whose mother and aunt were two of the girl group in question. It's not entirely biographical, with some fictionalised characters and events.

The poster - and to a large extent the soundtrack - strongly suggest Dreamgirls Down Under (even down to the lead actresses in the respective film adaptions being alumnae of their country's version of Pop Idol). It does satisfy on that level, but there's so much more to the film than I'd expected.

With the white Irish guy managing the band and introducing them to soul music there's more than a hint of The Commitments. Then there's the tour of Vietnam which could conjure up any number of films with that backdrop (the entertainment angle reminded me of that bit in For The Boys where the older Dixie sang for the troops in Vietnam).

And of course there's the unmistakably gritty Australian tone. With The Sapphires being an Australian Aboriginal group, most interesting of all is the focus on civil rights. The film touches not just on the sometimes hostile reception they got due to their race, but also the wider concerns facing First Australians at the time and their horrific treatment from the Government. The film opens with some text giving us background:

Until 1967, Australia's native Aboriginal population, amongst the oldest peoples on earth, were denied full citizenship by the Australian government. Segregated to church missions and Aboriginal reserves, they were not classified as human beings, but rather as "Flora and Fauna."

As late as the 1970s, fair-skinned Aboriginal children were routinely taken from their families to be raised in institutions, or with white families, and taught "white ways."

These children are known as the "Stolen Generation."

It's important to note that the film is set in 1968, the year after the citizenship law changed, and a key year for civil rights, not least with the assassination of Martin Luther King - an event referenced in the film.

Some of the complexities of the racial politics are touched upon in the film, with one of the main characters being one of these fair-skinned children, struggling to reconnect with the family she's been raised to believe are the enemy. And the film shows that racial politics can run any way, from the black girls being called "monkeys" by white bar patrons as they perform, to the fair-skinned relative being called a "coconut" by her own cousin, lashing out in frustration and powerlessness. The law might be "fixed", but the consequences live on. It's a painful and charged topic, but rather than dwell on it, the film simply acknowledges it's there and continues on its way. There is a journey, but it's not anywhere near as heavy as one might expect given the opening text.

Indeed, if the film has a failing, it's that perhaps it does pull its punches a little when it comes to the heavier stuff. The Vietnam war background - while not without its moments - is perhaps not as horrific as it could have been. But then, perhaps that's simply because that's what I've come to expect from war films. This is a small part of that war seen mostly from the relatively safe (mostly) vantage point of people who have gone there to entertain rather than to fight. It could be argued that they saw plenty and the consequences - while not extreme - were enough. This is a fun musical after all, and it's impressive that the film includes these topics, honouring them without dwelling on or being defined by them.

There's a balance to be struck, and despite some of its themes, the film captures a sense of fun and magic and spirit. There are some hilarious lines, enjoyable dynamics and the songs range from beautiful and haunting to foot-tappingly energetic. The emphasis is mostly on the latter, giving this a real feel-good vibe. And it works. I'd happily watch it again, and I'm already revisiting the soundtrack.

 

[Willie Oleson]

80 minutes of stupid nasty fun.
SPEED 0.5, as it were.

 

[Biggie]

Top Gun Maverick.

I gotta say... it's pretty good. Not Tom's best cinematic offering, but still a good romp.

Some comedy, some nicely shot action, some romance for our man here, and unlike last time, female fighter pilots get recognition. Yu Xu and Kara Hultergreen anyone?

Beginning to end, just a jolly good lark of a movie, with a hat tip to the late Goose!

 

[DallasFanForever]

Top Gun Maverick.

This movie has far exceeded the box office expectations it received. It now ranks #7 all time (domestically here in the USA) having passed Titanic.

I still think the original was better, and there’s no shame there, but I found it very enjoyable and highly entertaining.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Buster (1988)

It's only taken me around three-and-a-half decades to get around to watching it.

It was more or less what I expected it to be. Slightly quirky, very British and with a sense of fun (an odd thing to write about a film based on a real-life violent crime).

Phil Collins is really good. You wouldn't credit that this is his first proper acting gig. The chemistry between him and Julie Walters is really good, and of course it goes without saying that JW herself is extremely watchable, as always.

A number of familiar EastEnders faces, including Kenny Beale. Wikipedia tells me Phil Mitchell plays a small role, but as I didn't know ahead of time I didn't spot him.

Sheila Hancock - best known to me for being a semi-regular on Just A Minute - is one of the best things in this as JW's mother. It's not the biggest or most showy of roles, but she does great things with it.

The soundtrack is running through my head the morning after, so it's done its job. Anne Dudley's score, too, was nice and there were a couple of standout moments where it included beautiful orchestral versions of the Collins tracks, most notably in the scene where Buster and June part and the score incorporates Groovy Kind Of Love.

 

[Angela Channing]

Top Gun Maverick.

I gotta say... it's pretty good. Not Tom's best cinematic offering, but still a good romp.

Some comedy, some nicely shot action, some romance for our man here, and unlike last time, female fighter pilots get recognition. Yu Xu and Kara Hultergreen anyone?

Beginning to end, just a jolly good lark of a movie, with a hat tip to the late Goose!

I need to see this. So many people have told me how good it is, even those who like me haven't seen the original seemed to enjoy it.

 

[Crimson]

PREY (2022)

Better than expected. For years, the Predator (and Aliens) films have been overly complicated and bogged down with excessive lore. When, really, all that's needed is to drop the title monster into a unique environment with some reasonably well developed characters to be killed off.

 

[Biggie]

I need to see this. So many people have told me how good it is, even those who like me haven't seen the original seemed to enjoy it.

Get yourself into the cinema, Maverick has a nods to the original Top Gun but if one didn't pick up the references it will go unnoticed.

Yeah...Maverick is a good fun movie.