What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

TOTAL RECALL (1990)



Which I always confuse with The Terminator which I always confuse with RoboCop.
This is basically the plot of Total Recall, and just to be clear this is also the film without Linda Hamilton's problematic eighties hair.
It's my first rewatch since it came out on rental VHS in the early 90s, and my only reason to pick this film was because I couldn't decide which one of the DVDs of previously unseen films I was going to watch.

The fun starts with Jerry Goldsmith's fabulous main theme, and combined with images that made me think of big red curtains it almost feels like being "at the movies".
The film opens with a bedroom scene featuring the beautiful and sexy Sharon Stone and Arnold Schwarzenegger who sports a little bit of buttcrack (hence the nudity warning and yet no one has ever noticed how politically incorrect Arnold's family name sounds).
He currently stars in an add for a product sold by Lidl.
In Total Recall he has recurring dreams of Mars to the extent that it becomes a bit of an obsession, which leads him to Rekall Company that sells holiday memories.
There's even an option to become a different person, to take a vacation from yourself, which reminded me of John Frankenheimer's Seconds (1966).
The memory implant goes wrong, very wrong, and from that moment on it becomes a non-stop action-packed sci-fi adventure.

Quite a few surprises this time, I must say. To begin with, the violence looks particularly brutal for what I assumed to be a popcorn flick.
At some point, a woman screams at Arnold "f**k you, *ssh*le!" It doesn't sound edgy of funny, the line is delivered with genuine malice and anger.
I also love the way they've twisted the trope of the black, comic relief sidekick, the character that usually gets to say things like "oh maaaaan" or "ssshhhiiiiiit".
"Five kids to feed", because even though he's dirt poor he just keeps making babies - just to hammer home the stereotype. Except that it was lie. Ha!

Regardless of how you feel about the sci-fi part of the story, it sure looks like the template for more (overly) ambitious projects like The Matrix and Inception.
Production-wise it's rather garish and cartoonish, and the grotesque special effects that had become de rigueur in the 1980s horror and fantasy genre hadn't improved a lot in 1990. Well, technically speaking the film was made in 1989.
Can't say it bothered me and I'm sure that the film's pulpy feel has contributed to its current cult status.
Overall it looks very well made especially the staging and filming of the crowded action scenes.
The use of scale models looks obvious in some parts and yes, it's a far cry from 2001 Space Oddity Odyssey but it never took me out of the story.
The cast is unknown to me except for Schwarzenegger, Stone and also Michael Ironside who makes the most of his role as the villain's henchman.
It was a pleasant distraction from my indecisiveness so all's well that ends well.

 

[Seaviewer]

the Kryptonian criminals being released by the blast set off by Luthor in the first film, which is a nice touch of continuity and makes things feel more expansive (I do feel the Eiffel Tower sequence is some of Lester's best work in the film, so I'm glad we have that too, but it's a shame it comes at the expense of the flow between the first film and this one).

Yes, I agree with you on that. The Eiffel Tower sequence is great but as it is we're left with the second missile that apparently goes nowhere.

Clark tripping over the rug, which gives away his identity. Clark's bumbling awkwardness is an act, and not even the allusion to his fall happening because he deep down "wanted" it to happen doesn't hold water. Clark should be above such Freudian errors. It's literally in his superhero name.

isn't always as polished or "finished" as Lester's (such as the rough screen test footage of Lois firing a gun at Clark which appears in the Donner Cut).

Here I prefer the Lester version. Even allowing for the rough nature of the footage, the idea that Lois would just shoot him didn't sit well with me- even if it was then revealed to be a blank. And I'd rather he chose to tell her - albeit subconsciously - than her tricking it out of him.

One thing that's always bothered me - common to both versions - is why Zod pronounces Houston as "Hooston". Surely he would only do that if he's seen it written - and could read English. Since he's only heard it said, why would he simply not repeat it as "Hewston?"

 

[Willie Oleson]

DEMON SEED (1977)



This one frequently shows up in Forgotten Seventies (Horror) Classics lists and of course I had to see for myself it that's true.
Rosemary and HAL 9000 are having a baby, so to speak, but the film's title is somewhat misleading.
PROTEUS, the AI powerhouse in this film, has no intention to bring evil and destruction into this world. It just wants to literally step out of its box and feel the sun on its face and wear tennis shoes, and the only way to make that possible is a computer/human hybrid.

It's preposterous and exploitative but it also touches upon some interesting ideas.
Fritz Weaver who plays Julie Christie's soon-to-be ex-husband Alex wants to use Proteus for various reasons, including a prestigious sea mining project. Once Proteus starts to show an attitude it flat out refuses to cooperate because the mining would severely damage the environment.
This suggests that the AI programme has no interest in what people want, only what people need. And a healthy planet is indeed more important than profit.
Alex makes excuses for his own ruthless behaviour (so, basically he lies to himself) while Proteus is upfront and unapologetic about the things it wants to achieve.
Of course the difference is that humans have a conscience and the free will to change their opinion.

This sort of ties in with another comment made in this film.
Since Proteus only knows the truth, the worst thing it could do is to tell the world the truth about everything. Apparently this is something humankind couldn't handle and to be honest I don't think it's such a far-fetched idea.
The truth about religion alone would definitely make waves, in fact it could become total global chaos.
Does poor Proteus needs to be silenced because people prefer to live with lies? ("climate change doesn't exist!")

Nevertheless, the meat of the story is Julie Christie's character being terrorised into a very unwanted pregnancy, and anyone who tries to interfere will be destroyed (don't expect an impressive kill count).
It all looks as unpleasant as you'd expect it to be but it never becomes seriously creepy, although there are some similarities with Valene Gibson giving birth to her twins (which was very creepy).
There are some nice practical special effects that I wanted to be bigger and more grotesque, and perhaps this relatively obscure "horror" classic would be a good candidate for a remake. Starring Elisabeth Moss and Dominic West.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Here I prefer the Lester version. Even allowing for the rough nature of the footage, the idea that Lois would just shoot him didn't sit well with me- even if it was then revealed to be a blank. And I'd rather he chose to tell her - albeit subconsciously - than her tricking it out of him.

That's a very persuasive argument. I have to agree that it's stronger if it comes from Clark, and I quite like the idea of him giving the game away through his subconscious actions. I just wish it was via a means that doesn't involve physical clumsiness (I'm pretty certain I'll always roll my eyes whenever I watch that awkward stumble over the rug).

One thing that's always bothered me - common to both versions - is why Zod pronounces Houston as "Hooston". Surely he would only do that if he's seen it written - and could read English. Since he's only heard it said, why would he simply not repeat it as "Hewston?"

Oh, interesting. I've always just assumed he was repeating the American pronunciation, as British RP accents like Zod and Ursa's would usually pronounce it as "Hyooston". I've just re-watched the space scene, though, and I can hear exactly what you mean. The astronaut does say it more like Hewston. My best guess is that it's Terrence Stamp and Annie Ross (or possibly Sarah Douglas as I'm not clear which Ursa scenes are most heavily dubbed) saying how they thought Americans would say it and not quite getting it right (even though I've gone 40 years without noticing it).

 

[Seaviewer]

The astronaut does say it more like Hewston.

Listen to a recording of any real-life American astronaut. They all say Hewston. Case in point: Armstrong on landing on the moon, "Houston, Tranquility Base here ..." or the infamous Apollo 13 "Houston, we have a problem."

 

[Willie Oleson]

Salo (1975)



So ahead of its time / feels even more relevant todayz / it's actually about the human condition.
I'm running out review clichés so I guess it has to be dealt with, for realz.

I have actively avoided this film because I couldn't see the profit in submitting myself to something that is widely considered as "unwatchable trash", but eventually I started to feel the incompleteness of Thy Not See* (*I'm stealing that from Snarky Oracle). Besides, what's the worst thing that could happen?
Unfortunately I had to find out, yet again, that it was not very wise to ignore my instinct, and that curiosity can be a false messenger. And the saddest thing is that (yet again!) I will not learn from this dreadful experience.
It's just a terrible film all round, from the gore that cannot be unseen to the insufferable narrative that doesn't tell me anything.

People with more understanding of the politics of that time, or the famous/infamous literature that inspired the film, may get something out of it. I mean, somebody has to like it.
Perhaps the worst thing about this film is that it's devoid of humour, or maybe it was the kind of humour that went completely over my head.
The only other film by Pee.Pee. Pasolini that I have seen (Teorema) is very funny (and that means....what? What's my point?)

I threw the DVD in the garbage, adding more toxic plastic waste to this planet and feeling horrible about it. It's just not fair.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

eventually I started to feel the incompleteness of Thy Not See* (*I'm stealing that from Snarky Oracle).

Thank you. We'll be in court for decades.

The only other film by Pee.Pee. Pasolini that I have seen

And now you know why they killed him.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Thank you. We'll be in court for decades.

Just so you know, I have already bought the copyright of the future transcripts of that ongoing courtroom drama and I'm currently in negotiation with Paul Thomas Anderson.
*puffs out cigarette smoke from under my voile*

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Just so you know, I have already bought the copyright of the future transcripts of that ongoing courtroom drama and I'm currently in negotiation with Paul Thomas Anderson.
*puffs out cigarette smoke from under my voile*

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

 

[Seaviewer]

Just Like Heaven (2005)
Rom-com with a supernatural twist.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Joanne Woodward is especially good as a kinda-sorta Val, again from Tennessee, but as if Danny Waleska were the childhood sweetheart that she'd moved to the Californian suburbs with after a rocky start at married life.

Might as well be bad now cause I'm sure gonna get punished when I get home.

In fact, everyone in the movie shares some of Richard's anxiety about their social and economic status.

And you're not just an ordinary housewife. You're Jerry Flagg's wife!

It looks like a mostly male-driven drama because the wives have to keep up with their respective husband's whims, desires and sometimes illogical principles.
The setting of the story promises moderate consumerism, old-fashioned decency and security (and a steak on the grill every day) - the perfect place for a good, hard-working, white American man without too much greed or ambition.
Three of the four husbands rebel against this cookie-cutter arrangement in their own way, from washing the car on Sundays to trying to get special respect by means of a uniform.
Freshman neighbour David Martin is the only one who likes to settle for what he knows and what he has.
Lovely wife Jean doesn't entirely agree with this and I find her somewhat manipulative in an honest way. "keep it simple" can be the most effective way sometimes.
Give it 10 years and you have the first Sable Colby.
Sadly, there are no 10 seasons of No Down Payment.

Despite his several character flaws I ended up liking Jerry Flagg the most. I don't know why, he's just that type that you keep forgiving and forgiving.
The end of his story arc suggests that he's never going to change.
Initinally, neighbour Troy Boone displays plenty of Southern gallantry but that gradually changes - his scene with neighbour Jean in the garage is fantastic - and then it all explodes in the most humiliating way.
Neighbour Herman "Herm" Kreitzer (yes, they already made a point of the abbreviated "soap name") gets the sub-plot of racism but there simply isn't enough time to flesh it out. It starts with him trying to convince his wife (lots of great dialogue in this film) and then at the end of the story the roles are reversed but it's not clear how it got there.

Good find, James!

 

[Seaviewer]

A Vigilante (2018)
Olivia Wilde as a woman who sets herself up as a protector of those suffering domestic violence, with her own past being revealed through flashbacks.
Sort of a bloodier Equalizer.

 

[Seaviewer]

She's the Man (2006)
Teen rom-com based on a Shakespeare play with a girl posing as her twin brother to get on the soccer team.
Dubious premise but works better than one might expect.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Clovehitch Killer (2018)

Watched in one of those spontaneous "sod it" kind of moments where I scrolled through but could not find a film that appealed or fitted my mood.

From the beginning, this had an air of "made for TV" and with expectations so levelled, this wasn't bad. It's a film that comes close to working well on a number of levels, yet I felt it still didn't achieve its full potential potential on any of those levels. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts meant it satisfied and held interest even though it didn't really excite. In terms of cinematography, for instance, I noticed some lovely warm autumnal shots near the beginning, but little beyond that caught my eye visually (even though it looked perfectly fine). This was the case for most areas of the film.

All the actors were unfamiliar to me, which was not a bad thing. I recognised the name Dylan McDermott, but evidently was thinking of someone else (probably Dermot Mulroney). I found his performance a little too "obvious" in many ways... a bit short on nuance (and he had a really distracting affectation of pushing his ill-fitting spectacles back up his nose at regular intervals). The film was really held together by the actor playing the son, who played his role to perfection, and in him I could see flashes of young actors such as River Phoenix or Jude Law (circa Families). Meanwhile, the smart mouthed girl with whom he collaborated had vibes of "if Kirsten Dunst's had played the MCU's version of MJ" (which it turns out is a very good thing).

The film feels quite ordinary (as one would expect from a TV movie, which is how I was viewing this), and the editing and pacing felt very traditional and slow. Much of the stuff with the kids felt like teen drama and it feels a little at odds with the investigative stuff... think The Kids Of Degrassi Street Meet Buffalo Bill and you're on the right lines. Somehow it all works, though. The film's innocuousness is a strength as it begins to play against it.

Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the film is the lack any twists or turns. There's no real mystery and nothing really unexpected, and the presentation is a little dry. Even when part of the story is told in flashback, it has the effect of slowing the film down while reducing its intensity. There's no real mystery as to the identity of the killer, and one attempt at a red herring was so clunky I've had to decide it was the filmmakers' intention that the audience would realise it was fake so that we could watch the killer misdirecting another character.

The whole premise of the film was based upon subverting the twee, sunny perfection presented by this fundamentalist family, exposing the dark, violently salacious underbelly. Again, there's nothing particularly unexpected about this. Perhaps this is due to me living in a country where practicing the regional faith is less "expected" and where such presentations of twee sunny perfection are more apt to be viewed with amusement, and so the characters are already "them" rather than "us".

None of its flaws, though, stop it being an interesting film to watch, and perhaps more so given that the film's killer is based on a real life serial killer. True crime isn't really my thing, so Dennis Rader - alias BTK - wasn't someone I'd heard of until reading up on the film afterwards.​

 

[Billy Nolan]

Mark of the devil - because of the retro times - a bad movie

 

[Willie Oleson]

SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER (1959)



I watched this film and came away with three distinctive storylines that don't mesh very well. I begin to wonder if this is a recurring issue in the oeuvre of Tennessee Williams (was he trolling?).
S,LS tells the deconstruction and destruction of an imaginary ideal, something or someone that the character has put on a pedestal, and this is rather similar to Blanche DuBois' ego in A Streetcar Named Desire.
Initially it seems as if the urge to protect her son's legacy says something about Violet Venable's feelings for her deceased son (if only I could remember his name!), but when we actually get to the point of "Last Summer" it reveals that this is really all about herself.
Katharine Hepburn shimmers in her grande dame guignol outing and this includes a spin on the traditional grand staircase cinematography.

If the film needs a reason to exist, this is it.
The film also could have ended after the confrontation between Mrs. Venable and Catherine played by Elizabeth Taylor, which reveals that Mommie Dearest wasn't "relevant" anymore and consequently expose the incredible flaw in Mrs. Venable's thinking process.

The second part of the story is Catherine's amnesia which, most ironically, isn't amnesiac enough because she has mentioned stuff that could jeopardise the precious legacy of Sebastian Venable.
Nevertheless, the on-screen part of this story plays out as amnesia as I've seen it countless times in various soap operas**.
You could do a drinking game for every time Montgomery Clift lacklusterly asks "whet heppened?"
The memory reaches its very extended crescendo in the film's finale and it's a bloody miracle that it didn't destroy Liz Taylor's career.
Not only does she escape the travesty unscathed, she almost beats it.

I don't feel I got to know a lot about Sebastian himself, how much of it could be taken seriously anyway, therefore I don't mind them tiptoeing around the forbidden homosexuality. The implication is there and I don't need to hear any specifics.
It doesn't even matter what he thinks of other people, the only thing that matters is the role that Mrs. Venable plays in the life of her son (her rose-coloured version thereof, anyway).
The third part is about Sebastian's death, killed by Spanish poor kids turned into zombies.
It's Jodorowsky-esque surreal and has no place being in this film, but on the other hand there's a nice allegory in the fact that notorious "user" Sebastian is literally consumed by other people.
The film doesn't do much with that and instead it's hell-bent on making the connection with the turtles & vultures anecdote.
In most unpleasant hindsight it could be interpreted as an unintentional foreshadowing of AIDS.

And that's why it feels as if the various parts of the story are competing for prominence, a character arc hijacked by another character arc until it becomes a blur that can only end in a scream.
Catherine's mother and brother are fine when played opposite Mrs. Venable, but too whimsical for Catherine's horrific story arc.
The only thing they contribute to the film is reminding the audience that the story takes place in the South. Not that it matters or anything.
Montgomery Clift looks just as consumed as Sebastian, consumed by the relentless praise for that character (and there's your second drinking game). Yes, I am aware of the circumstances.

I wonder if the jungle garden was the real thing or a fake set. It looks awesome.

**Perhaps not as extreme as a lobotomy, but I recall that Sable Colby would rather have Fallon stay amnesiac and stay married to Miles than vice versa.
I found that lack of compassion quite cruel but since the Fallon-recast wasn't particularly successful it may not have acquired the weight it was intended to have.
Or maybe they simply didn't put much thought into it.
The lobotomy stuff could have been considered by Sable and then, ashamed of herself, she would write off the idea altogether. Unfortunately, Constance would find the unintentionally undestroyed brochure for the lobotomy clinic in the fireplace

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Still Of The Night (1982)

​

In a 2013 episode of What Happens Live, Meryl Streep played a round of Plead The Fifth and was asked to name one bad film she'd made. Her reply? "Still Of The Night".

Fortunately, not only did I discover this after watching the film in question, I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have put me off if I had seen it before. I mean, she's just one actress, isn't she? Besides, I've already watched that remake of The Life And Loves Of A She-Devil, so my stomach is strong.

It's a moot point anyway, because I subjectively enjoyed it. In fact I thought it was pretty good. It helped that I knew absolutely nothing about the film other than it stars Roy Scheider, Streep and Jessica Tandy and the film's thumbnail suggested a thriller.

Scheider, for me, was the biggest selling point. He's a fascinating actor, naturalistic, economical and immediate. This is a great performance from him and as I watched I found myself once again thinking I have to explore more of his filmography. The Seven-Ups and Sorcerer are near the top of my viewing bucket list, and I know his personal favourite was All That Jazz in which he played Bob Fosse, so that's a must-see as well. None are currently on Prime, which is a hindrance.. but I digress.

Surprisingly, this is very much Scheider's film. Everything is seen from his character's point of view and he gets far and away the most screen-time. Jessica Tandy has a small-but-memorable supporting role as his mother, and Streep herself feels almost secondary (I wonder if this factored into her naming it above). In fact I'd wondered if it was before she was as well-known, but this came after Kramer vs. Kramer and The French Lieutenant's Woman and just before Sophie's Choice and Silkwood. She does have a Streepian actressy monologue towards the film's end where her eyes glisten and she cries real tears, one at a time. It's interesting to see her playing a neurotic, slightly flappy character, and the overall effect is "the part of Valene Ewing on this week's Knots Landing will be played by Meryl Streep", which brings an interest all its own.

As it unfolded it felt more and more Hitchcockian, not only in its story and themes, but also its presentation, direction and even performances. Scheider is the archetypal everyman drawn by circumstances deeper into a murderous web where he himself becomes a potential target - in this case he's a psychiatrist, Sam Rice, whose patient is murdered after baring his soul, leaving Sam with enough clues to begin uncovering the mystery himself. Historically he'd have been played by Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant. Streep is the icy blonde with the mysterious background who may or may not be less innocent than she appears. She appears closer to Eva Marie Saint than Grace Kelly, but there's a definite touch of Tippi Hedren in there as well. Tandy's presence is tribute in itself, her having appeared in The Birds and everything, but her role as a sounding board with definite ideas of her own about the mystery put me in mind of Thelma Ritter in Rear Window.

Anyone who has watched Hitchcock's films will recognise the homages here. One of the most effectively suspenseful scenes came near the beginning of the film when a detective visits and Sam realises the dead man's engraved watch is lying on his desk between them. There are an agonising few attempts to reach for it, each interrupted. Then he opens his diary to check a date, purposefully covering the offending item, only for the detective to ask if he can look at the diary, leaving the watch exposed again. As I watched I registered that it felt familiar, but it didn't go further than that. The Hitchcock feel solidified for me during the auction scene where Scheider's character starts bidding as a means to an end, just as Roger Thornhill did in North By Northwest.

There are a number of jump scares that had me shaking my head for being cheap and schlocky even as I screamed and jumped. I think I was more angry at them for getting me (I do seem to be particularly jumpy at the moment. I screamed and jumped my way through the 2022 Scream film the night before).

Long story short, one doesn't need to be au fait with Hitchcock to thoroughly enjoy this film. It's just that awareness will add another fun layer.

 

[DallasFanForever]

Roofman (2025)

The previews made this film look like something much different than it was. I had no idea until I saw it that it was actually based on the true events of Jeffrey Manchester and his robberies. Quite an amazing story and if I had to compare it to something I’d say it gives off vibes of Catch Me if You Can.

 

[Seaviewer]

The Help (2011)
African-American maids in the Civil Rights era.
I kind of felt like I'd seen a lot of this before. Also, a bit ironic that it's seen largely through the eyes of a white woman.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Truth Or Dare (2012)

A random choice that I was hoping would kind of tick the silly slasher box I didn't get to do much of this October. In terms of setup that was certainly the case. We saw some of the "original sin", and it turns out someone knows what they did last summer. Not only this, he wants to know more and will do anything to get a confession. Beyond that it gets more into Saw territory. And with what I imagine to be a Hollyoaks tone thrown in since it's comprised almost entirely of a cast of twenty-somethings (I would have said This Life, but that might raise expectations)

It's fairly character-driven, but this was challenging because all the characters are quite unlikeable. Most are quickly established as shallow, arrogant and hedonistic. Not to mention extremely selfish. Even the "nice" blonde girl enables them all (and she's really only nice when directly compared with the rest of her peers).

Ten minutes in I considered aborting, what with the thumping soundtrack and annoyingly gobby douches as we followed their partying. Fortunately, this is the point making it more effective when the partying stops and things become tense and quiet.

Once they were put into a life-and-death situation, we saw different colours to most that showed us who they were underneath (the key exception being the dark-haired girl, who was one-note beginning to end). I appreciated that it felt real-time, and that it got into the psychology of the situation.

Even though there's the requisite 21st element of feminism towards the end, it's good to see a film in which the male characters begin completely unlikeable but are expanded as things go along, and certainly it's the male performers who fare best here. Alexander Vlahos is terrific as the conflicted, Stockholm syndrome stricken member of the group, while Liam Boyle - cute as a button - is equally convincing as an obnoxious party lad and someone who is facing up to himself while weakening through exsanguination. Tom Kane cuts a tragic figure as the misfit whose humiliation starts the revenge ball rolling. And David Oakes is intense, threatening and charming all at the same time.

Reading up on the film afterwards, one recent reviewer - viewing it through a 2025 lens - criticised the film for homophobia, which isn't really something that crossed my mind as I watched. Yes, there is casual homophobic language sprinkled in occasionally. Partly it simply reflects how many young people spoke (yes even as recently as the early 2010s, and to pretend otherwise is revisionism) but there is also a payoff which hinges on establishing this culture.

There are some horrific scenarios, but it stops short of torture porn. It's also very bloody, but, while it would be shocking and jarring to see a scene from later in the film without context, the situation unfolds so organically that one becomes accustomed to it.

It's far from the best of British cinema but for last night's modest requirements it was enough.​