- Awards
- 27
And Kathleen Turner played her own erotic nut job in Ken Russell's Crimes Of Passion, four years after Bad Timing and three years before Black Widow.
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 27
Oh, and then Theresa Russell continued it in Ken Russell's Whore in 1991.
- Awards
- 24
This is certainly one of those movies that are so bad they are good for a laugh. Pity because the cast was truly talented. And I guess that Perkins saved a lot in shrink money by doing this movie. No more Norman Bates after this...
- Awards
- 27
I think it's an underwhelming hodgepodge of ideas that had been done before (and better) and it's mostly the vibrantly vulgar and witty dialogue that makes it interesting to watch.
The look of the erotic thriller looks fine in other genres (e.g. Body Heat) but operating on their own qualities they usually come across as try-hard shockers.
Nevertheless, Crimes Of Passion has the Ken Russell extravaganzas - as much as he could do in this awful looking mid-eigthies setting - so that sets it apart from the rest. I guess.
The story of a marriage falling apart doesn't look much better than the average Lifetime movie, and it's obvious that the frigid wife is to blame for everything, which brings the two protagonists together in a "sex saves the day" scenario.
Then there's the moonlighting hooker whose icy heart needs to be melted, and that also happens by means of good, personal sex.
For all its presumed audacity it's actually quite conventional, even a bit hokey sometimes.
Anthony Perkins in the role of the bewildered Reverend chewing the scenery starts very promising, but then that has to become the thriller aspect and it just doesn't work at all. Not even as a parody, if that's what they were was going for.
Perhaps the biggest surprise is that John Laughlin plays it relatively strong, considering the powerhouses he had to compete with.
I don't regret watching this film, it's got just enough novelty value and Kathleen Turner sure knows how to vamp it up.
- Awards
- 27
Now that prime is removing Bond-for-free again I decided to do a 1960s James Bond rewatch mini-marathon.
From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are still the glorious pinnacles of the series - albeit for different reasons.
Dr. No is a proper introduction (a little Thunderbirds-esque), and Goldfinger became the template for the more fantastical aspect of the Bond series, and with a rather clever villain's scheme.
The meticulous filming of the hijacking of the atomic bombs in Thunderball is completely disregarded in You Only Live Twice as the film opens with a ridiculous spacecraft-eating monster that pops up out of nowhere.
And to think that Moonraker gets all the hate.
Sean Connery's hair colour is lighter (almost like a coupe soleil) and the sumo wrestling looks anything but appealing. All in all, a very bad start.
The obligatory travelogue glamour takes place in Japan and it looks undercooked compared to the other films, but also overexposed as it shows too much of the cultural shenanigans, which affects the film's pace negatively.
James Bond fakes his own death and after that he tells everybody that his name is James Bond. It doesn't seem like a well thought-out scam.
Perhaps the main part of the film should have been played by Tiger (which would eliminate the over-explaining) only for James Bond to make a surprising and spectacular return in the final act.
The best or most memorable bits are the booby traps that literally pull the rug from under Bond's and Helga's feet, respectively.
The piranha pond scene looks believable enough, after all, a failing or disloyal SPECTRE agent needs to die in a gruesome way.
However, the floor trap that drops Bond in Tiger's office is not only made for that ridiculous purpose, it's also made for that exact moment. It's beyond cartoonish.
Well actually I'm just jealous that I didn't think of it myself.
I still think the 1960s was the most appropriate decade for the Bond fantasy, therefore I'm very disappointed that You Only Live Twice turned out to be such a stinker (despite being my umpteenth rewatch. How come I never noticed this before?)
Not as James Bond, he IS James Bond. It's as if that statement had to make up for something. According to my internet sources - how SPECTRE of me - he played Bond-san reluctantly, and it shows.
The series may have been too much of a guilty pleasure in the more serious New Hollywood decade, and in the 1980s and especially the 1990s there was too much competition for our favourite 007.
And yet I'm SO glad that they've never stopped making them. As soon as he's back in the prime catalogue I'll do a seventies rewatch mini-marathon.
From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are still the glorious pinnacles of the series - albeit for different reasons.
Dr. No is a proper introduction (a little Thunderbirds-esque), and Goldfinger became the template for the more fantastical aspect of the Bond series, and with a rather clever villain's scheme.
The meticulous filming of the hijacking of the atomic bombs in Thunderball is completely disregarded in You Only Live Twice as the film opens with a ridiculous spacecraft-eating monster that pops up out of nowhere.
And to think that Moonraker gets all the hate.
Sean Connery's hair colour is lighter (almost like a coupe soleil) and the sumo wrestling looks anything but appealing. All in all, a very bad start.
The obligatory travelogue glamour takes place in Japan and it looks undercooked compared to the other films, but also overexposed as it shows too much of the cultural shenanigans, which affects the film's pace negatively.
James Bond fakes his own death and after that he tells everybody that his name is James Bond. It doesn't seem like a well thought-out scam.
Perhaps the main part of the film should have been played by Tiger (which would eliminate the over-explaining) only for James Bond to make a surprising and spectacular return in the final act.
The best or most memorable bits are the booby traps that literally pull the rug from under Bond's and Helga's feet, respectively.
The piranha pond scene looks believable enough, after all, a failing or disloyal SPECTRE agent needs to die in a gruesome way.
However, the floor trap that drops Bond in Tiger's office is not only made for that ridiculous purpose, it's also made for that exact moment. It's beyond cartoonish.
Well actually I'm just jealous that I didn't think of it myself.
I still think the 1960s was the most appropriate decade for the Bond fantasy, therefore I'm very disappointed that You Only Live Twice turned out to be such a stinker (despite being my umpteenth rewatch. How come I never noticed this before?)
Not as James Bond, he IS James Bond. It's as if that statement had to make up for something. According to my internet sources - how SPECTRE of me - he played Bond-san reluctantly, and it shows.
The series may have been too much of a guilty pleasure in the more serious New Hollywood decade, and in the 1980s and especially the 1990s there was too much competition for our favourite 007.
And yet I'm SO glad that they've never stopped making them. As soon as he's back in the prime catalogue I'll do a seventies rewatch mini-marathon.
- Awards
- 24
Two more movies I had curiosity about:
- "Images", directed by Robert Altman, and mentioned above. Probably the oddest flick I´ve ever seen, it was interesting though. Starring Susannah York and René Auberjonois (aka the Fish Face Guy on "Star Trek Deep Space 9"), both carry the story even when they are not on screen. The other few actors are a burden for the plot because they just suck. In current days what we see might be interpreted differently initially (maybe hallucinations? Alternate universes?). But the movie is too serious for that. At the end she is what we suspect, though perhaps in its era it wasn´t so predictible. Even so, it´s worthwhile watching at least once. The music is composed by John Williams, but it sounds like the score from the first "Planet of the Apes". Rather gritty but suggestive and scary.
- "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle": Directed by Altman´s protégé Alan Rudolph (who will have a little place in heaven for his lovely "Choose Me"), it stars a cast of rising actors in the 90s, with Jennifer Jason Leigh as poetess Dorothy Parker in the roaring 20s and 30s. I love her but here she is too intense and her role shadows the rest of the cast: Campbell Scott, Andrew McCarthy, and others that you wink and miss them, eg almost unknowns like Gwyneth Paltrow (more slappable than usual) and Stanley Tucci (only in one scene, but good as always). Its dialogues are very literary (Leigh is often reciting her poems) but it´s what I expected. If you prefer more action, watch anything else.
- "Images", directed by Robert Altman, and mentioned above. Probably the oddest flick I´ve ever seen, it was interesting though. Starring Susannah York and René Auberjonois (aka the Fish Face Guy on "Star Trek Deep Space 9"), both carry the story even when they are not on screen. The other few actors are a burden for the plot because they just suck. In current days what we see might be interpreted differently initially (maybe hallucinations? Alternate universes?). But the movie is too serious for that. At the end she is what we suspect, though perhaps in its era it wasn´t so predictible. Even so, it´s worthwhile watching at least once. The music is composed by John Williams, but it sounds like the score from the first "Planet of the Apes". Rather gritty but suggestive and scary.
- "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle": Directed by Altman´s protégé Alan Rudolph (who will have a little place in heaven for his lovely "Choose Me"), it stars a cast of rising actors in the 90s, with Jennifer Jason Leigh as poetess Dorothy Parker in the roaring 20s and 30s. I love her but here she is too intense and her role shadows the rest of the cast: Campbell Scott, Andrew McCarthy, and others that you wink and miss them, eg almost unknowns like Gwyneth Paltrow (more slappable than usual) and Stanley Tucci (only in one scene, but good as always). Its dialogues are very literary (Leigh is often reciting her poems) but it´s what I expected. If you prefer more action, watch anything else.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 27
To me it almost looks farcical, which is what makes it work, I think.
Robert Altman was an American filmmaker but Images was obviously meant to be a British thriller. He didn't quite get that special kind of tongue-in-cheek venom that I've only seen in British films, but he came very close.
I don't mean to bad-mouth Susannah York as a writer, but I found her unicorn monologues a bit irritating sometimes. It doesn't distract and perhaps it even enhances the autumnal fairy tale vibes of this film, but in a strange way it made me enjoy the character's predicament.
Surprisingly, the blood on the kitchen floor turns out to be the real thing, and I found it peculiar that the bottle Heinz ketchup was the only item on the kitchen table.
Oh, he was terrific. I recognised him but his name doesn't ring a bell.
Daaaahrathy, darling.
- Awards
- 27
Sick Of Myself (2022)
Body Horror is not a new sub-genre but it seems that the modern body horror has a specific, ambition-driven angle.
How far will they go to become a successful actress or athlete, or a beautiful and beloved stepsister, or to be that young sexy TV fitness person again.
I think all these stories hark back to the Dorian Gray classic, but combined with social media self-worshipping and also the extreme pressure of the various audition TV programmes that started with Idols.
When I noticed the thumbnail for Sick Of Myself on prime (the English title) I instinctively hoped it would be a Scandinavian film.
And that's what it is, from Norway to be exact.
I'm going to avoid the plot because you really need to see it for yourself, but I will say that (thankfully) it's not as ghoulish as The Ugly Stepsister, but it's much nastier and more fun than The Substance.
It's vile and hateful and hilarious and just like Speak No Evil it only works if you're willing to surrender yourself unconditionally. The Scandinavians appear to be the masters of modern social commentary and super-dark comedy. Force Majeure and the brilliant The Square are similar in cringe-value but without the bloody horror.
One minor spoiler: the fake allergy. I'm sure we all know someone who claims to have a certain (food) allergy* and I know that you're all saying "she just wants the attention and special treatment". Yes, for whatever reason it's always a she.
Anyway, Sick Of Myself may not be a "great" film but it is an awesome guilty pleasure.
*disclaimer: I know, well believe, that food allergy is a real thing and should not be ignored when a person makes it known. But you are very much allowed to bitch about it andnowI'mgoingtotalkreallyfastbecauseI'veonlygot2secondstoreadoutthe75possiblesideeffects.
Body Horror is not a new sub-genre but it seems that the modern body horror has a specific, ambition-driven angle.
How far will they go to become a successful actress or athlete, or a beautiful and beloved stepsister, or to be that young sexy TV fitness person again.
I think all these stories hark back to the Dorian Gray classic, but combined with social media self-worshipping and also the extreme pressure of the various audition TV programmes that started with Idols.
When I noticed the thumbnail for Sick Of Myself on prime (the English title) I instinctively hoped it would be a Scandinavian film.
And that's what it is, from Norway to be exact.
I'm going to avoid the plot because you really need to see it for yourself, but I will say that (thankfully) it's not as ghoulish as The Ugly Stepsister, but it's much nastier and more fun than The Substance.
It's vile and hateful and hilarious and just like Speak No Evil it only works if you're willing to surrender yourself unconditionally. The Scandinavians appear to be the masters of modern social commentary and super-dark comedy. Force Majeure and the brilliant The Square are similar in cringe-value but without the bloody horror.
One minor spoiler: the fake allergy. I'm sure we all know someone who claims to have a certain (food) allergy* and I know that you're all saying "she just wants the attention and special treatment". Yes, for whatever reason it's always a she.
Anyway, Sick Of Myself may not be a "great" film but it is an awesome guilty pleasure.
*disclaimer: I know, well believe, that food allergy is a real thing and should not be ignored when a person makes it known. But you are very much allowed to bitch about it andnowI'mgoingtotalkreallyfastbecauseI'veonlygot2secondstoreadoutthe75possiblesideeffects.
- Awards
- 21
I just watched Peter Bogdanovich's directorial debut, TARGETS (1968). It's a thinly-disguised portrait of Charles Whitman, the 1966 Texas Tower Shooter (horoscopically identical to Jodie Arias, for those keeping score). Some random guy arbitrarily kills his family (one of his early victims is his daddy, DALLAS' Uncle Harry McSween) and then embarks on a series of pointless massacres of highway commuters and, later, a drive-in theatre full of sitting ducks. (I even recognize the sniper's gun shop, and the highway running beside it, from '70s cop shows).
Juxtaposed with this is the story of an aging horror actor, logically-cast with Boris Karloff -- only one year after THE GRINCH and one year before his own death -- a self-described "relic" who craves retirement and bemoans the fact that his films' scariness can no longer compete with the horrors going on in real life.
This was somehow the cinematic result of low-budget impresario, Roger Corman, possessing excess footage of Karloff in THE TERROR (1963) and Karloff owing Corman two days' work. Corman gives Bogdanovich the cash to shoot his own footage from his own story, and is then instructed to blend the two. Miraculously, Bogdanovich (it takes a Leo) makes it work. (Although Peter's ex-wife and co-writer, Polly Platt, later made some unsportsmanlike comments about the existence of Karloff's part of the narrative, asserting that she did indeed view him as "a relic" and didn't want him in the picture). Sam Fuller ghost re-wrote the script.
Filmed in late-1967, the third-quarter-of-the-'60s starkness is organic and resonant. There's even zero music score. And TARGETS eventually got rather good reviews... But because MLK and RFK were assassinated in Spring of 1968, before the movie could be released, it cratered at the box office, the audience not in the mood to suffer the dystopian worldview the picture was serving up when comparable imagery was popping up nightly on the TV news in their living rooms.
One assumes it would be hard to make TARGETS today, because the reality of American mass shootings has now far-surpassed the most cynical celluloid fiction... Some say there's a sixty-year cycle. Maybe it's time for a sequel, one where a celebrated spree-shooter glumly puts aside his outdated firearms because some scamp, younger and newer, is setting off tactical nuclear weapons around the country.
What struck me as amazing was that I'd never even heard of this film before a few days ago!
Juxtaposed with this is the story of an aging horror actor, logically-cast with Boris Karloff -- only one year after THE GRINCH and one year before his own death -- a self-described "relic" who craves retirement and bemoans the fact that his films' scariness can no longer compete with the horrors going on in real life.
This was somehow the cinematic result of low-budget impresario, Roger Corman, possessing excess footage of Karloff in THE TERROR (1963) and Karloff owing Corman two days' work. Corman gives Bogdanovich the cash to shoot his own footage from his own story, and is then instructed to blend the two. Miraculously, Bogdanovich (it takes a Leo) makes it work. (Although Peter's ex-wife and co-writer, Polly Platt, later made some unsportsmanlike comments about the existence of Karloff's part of the narrative, asserting that she did indeed view him as "a relic" and didn't want him in the picture). Sam Fuller ghost re-wrote the script.
Filmed in late-1967, the third-quarter-of-the-'60s starkness is organic and resonant. There's even zero music score. And TARGETS eventually got rather good reviews... But because MLK and RFK were assassinated in Spring of 1968, before the movie could be released, it cratered at the box office, the audience not in the mood to suffer the dystopian worldview the picture was serving up when comparable imagery was popping up nightly on the TV news in their living rooms.
One assumes it would be hard to make TARGETS today, because the reality of American mass shootings has now far-surpassed the most cynical celluloid fiction... Some say there's a sixty-year cycle. Maybe it's time for a sequel, one where a celebrated spree-shooter glumly puts aside his outdated firearms because some scamp, younger and newer, is setting off tactical nuclear weapons around the country.
What struck me as amazing was that I'd never even heard of this film before a few days ago!
Last edited:
- Awards
- 3
I just watched Love Actually (2003), and it made me realize how much I enjoy the ensemble format with various ongoing stories that are connected to one another due to either a professional connection, friendship connection, family connection, or just happen to be in the same place at the same time.
The Laura Linney segment is the saddest segment because she and her crush are both pure souls that aren't selfish and put others before themselves... It's why the Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson characters both separately try to get the two together.. .and their unselfishness is the reason they ultimately don't stay together.
The Laura Linney segment is the saddest segment because she and her crush are both pure souls that aren't selfish and put others before themselves... It's why the Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson characters both separately try to get the two together.. .and their unselfishness is the reason they ultimately don't stay together.
- Awards
- 44
Home Alone (1990) / Home Alone2: Lost In New York (1992)
Little did I imagine that the Christmas Day telly offerings would be so poor that a highlight would be an oft-repeated film almost three and a half decades old. Much less that I would end up breaking a couple of key own rules on film viewing etiquette and end up enjoying myself in the process.
The first rule: never begin watching a film franchise with a sequel, the reasons for which are probably obvious to anyone who doesn't enjoy spoilers. The second rule: avoid watching films on outlets with commercial breaks. Any film purist will tell you this is crucial to enjoy a truly immersive experience. But there was bugger all else on TV, so when Home Alone 2: Lost In New York came on the air and we had a house guest who seemed keen (also never having seen it), I was a bit stuck.
I've avoided the Home Alone films ever since they came out. Not exactly actively so, but I've just never felt minded to watch. Precocious kids are among my least-favourite things on the planet, which must be a significant factor. Still, with the opening credits rolling as I was resigning myself to watching at least a bit of it, there was some hope. Tim Curry's name loomed large. And there was Brenda Fricker.
The direction of the film was quite striking and, as I watched, I found myself deciding that some of these visuals and scenes would be hitting the same notes as the original film. Until I watched the first film the following evening, I didn't realise quite how many were reprised. Indeed, the second film probably feels like a remake as much as a sequel. Or at least it would have done had I watched them in chronological order.
In the end, I've decided I watched the films in the correct order. Had I watched the sequel after the original I may have got too hung up on its lack of originality and its karaoke reprises of lines, motifs and set pieces from the first. Instead, I enjoyed it on its own merits and grew to really love its tone. Particularly in the second half when the cartoony violence ensued and I realised it's simply a WB animation made real. Like the Road Runner, the antagonists were subjected to life-changing injuries that would kill anyone several times over. But they get up, shake themselves off in annoyance and go in for more. I was surprised how enjoyable I found this silly, glaring lack of reality.
When it came to watching the original, it came with a sense of déjà vu. But of course I had already had my experience with the sequel so it was too late to ruin my view of that. And I couldn't hold anything against the original since this had come first. Instead I found myself running a kind of experiment to see how much of this film I recognised as having made its way into the sequel. Which is a fairly large percentage. The sequel attempts to broaden the pallet with variations on the theme which I suppose works well. It may lack the home invasion factor, which justified a lot of the violence in the original, but the sequel's justification came instead from the history between Kevin and the two antagonists and the fact that they (understandably) craved revenge.
Anyway, I've probably already gone into too much detail. These are films best enjoyed with the brain disengaged, which makes them perfect for Christmas.
There's talk of watching the third one, which has a completely different cast and crew, but I'm quite resistant. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. Don't they?
- Awards
- 27
Thief (1981)
To be honest I've been avoiding this film because I thought it would be just another heist/robbery flick, but it has a fairly positive reputation so I thought, what the heck.
Apart from the action, which is very good, I also find it an unexpectedly layered character drama.
Frank (James Caan) is not a nice person and he's also not a pleasant person. That air of entitlement works fine when he deals with other crooks but not when he communicates with the people in every-day situations.
Initially this looks like a flaw - who wants to spend two hours with a character like that - but at the same time it could be considered a matter of confidence on the part of the filmmaker.
As the story progresses we get to see what makes Frank tick but they trusted the audience to have the patience to get there.
Regardless of how I feel about a protagonist I'm always rooting for his/her "mission" because the alternative is no mission and therefore no story at all.
Frank never becomes adorable and there's no melodramatic redemption arc, it's just that the baddies who cross his path (murderous, corrupt police and a super-villainous gangster) make him the most likeable character by default.
Tuesday Weld (whom I often confuse with Britt Ekland) makes the very best of her love-interest character and basically most of the characters in the this film have something "real" about them. They're not in it just to get the point across.
There's an interesting scene in which a black doctor informs Frank that his only friend had died, and there's nothing surprising about that information.
The camera lingers on their faces without conveying anything in particular but it looks so unfriendly and uncomfortable, and I always love awkward stuff in films. If you want to know who Frank is, that's the only scene you need to watch.
The film looks old-school gorgeous, many dark scenes without losing any of its gloss or details. It's sort of Blade Runner but with a good plot, oops sorry couldn't resist.
THIEF looks like the template for HBO's criminal anti-hero success formula of the late 90s and 2000s.
The soundtrack is good and on-topic but I also had a personal, sorta subconscious soundtrack playing in my head.
The colour palette of this LP cover is rather similar to the film and I kept "hearing" All For Leyna and also James from another album.
To be honest I've been avoiding this film because I thought it would be just another heist/robbery flick, but it has a fairly positive reputation so I thought, what the heck.
Apart from the action, which is very good, I also find it an unexpectedly layered character drama.
Frank (James Caan) is not a nice person and he's also not a pleasant person. That air of entitlement works fine when he deals with other crooks but not when he communicates with the people in every-day situations.
Initially this looks like a flaw - who wants to spend two hours with a character like that - but at the same time it could be considered a matter of confidence on the part of the filmmaker.
As the story progresses we get to see what makes Frank tick but they trusted the audience to have the patience to get there.
Regardless of how I feel about a protagonist I'm always rooting for his/her "mission" because the alternative is no mission and therefore no story at all.
Frank never becomes adorable and there's no melodramatic redemption arc, it's just that the baddies who cross his path (murderous, corrupt police and a super-villainous gangster) make him the most likeable character by default.
Tuesday Weld (whom I often confuse with Britt Ekland) makes the very best of her love-interest character and basically most of the characters in the this film have something "real" about them. They're not in it just to get the point across.
There's an interesting scene in which a black doctor informs Frank that his only friend had died, and there's nothing surprising about that information.
The camera lingers on their faces without conveying anything in particular but it looks so unfriendly and uncomfortable, and I always love awkward stuff in films. If you want to know who Frank is, that's the only scene you need to watch.
The film looks old-school gorgeous, many dark scenes without losing any of its gloss or details. It's sort of Blade Runner but with a good plot, oops sorry couldn't resist.
THIEF looks like the template for HBO's criminal anti-hero success formula of the late 90s and 2000s.
The soundtrack is good and on-topic but I also had a personal, sorta subconscious soundtrack playing in my head.
The colour palette of this LP cover is rather similar to the film and I kept "hearing" All For Leyna and also James from another album.
- Awards
- 44
Apparently not. In late December all good judgement goes out of the window.
Home Alone 3 (1997)
In fairness, I knew I wasn't going to be watching art and I strongly suspected the standard would be significantly lower than the first two. On both counts I was right.
Firstly, the elephant in the room is the absence of the McCallister family in general and Mackaulay Culkin's Kevin in particular. The continuity is certainly missed ,and the story sticking with a very similar Chicago suburb is more a hindrance than a help since one keeps expecting to see a familiar family member or neighbour, or even to hear a reference to a character from the first two, and it's a disappointment when it doesn't come. The Pruitt Family is acceptable enough but, despite the taunting older siblings (one of whom is the future Black Widow), lacks the edge of the McCallisters. The parents and the film's protagonist are all quite nicey-nice which borders on saccharine at times. Alex - AKA Kevin '97 - is endearing enough, but feels like a generic American sitcom kid down to the requisite glossy pudding bowl haircut. The antagonists are even more generic than the family, with them lacking any real character and blurring into one.
The film's biggest problem is the kind of overkill favoured by so many Hollywood sequels. Instead of two rinky dink burglars, the kid is now dealing with a gang of four hardened international terrorists who have a wealth of spy technology at their disposal (before it gets to the Chicaco-based hijinks, the opening act is almost Bondian). Sadly, raising the stakes so high significantly loses the earlier films' intimate charm and all credibility is gone, even within this zany world.
The traps are much more elaborate and after some genuine fun in the middle act with the crims trying to catch a toy car with a camera attached, the slapstick of the third act descends into noisy, OTT tedium and I found my goodwill diminishing rapidly.
Had I watched this film with some distance between it and the first two, I might have enjoyed it more. Taken on its own merits it has its charms. There's no mistaking it's an inferior product, though, and it exemplifies why less is really more, even when it comes to cartoony antics.
- Awards
- 44
Winter's Bone (2010)
Of the films on various streaming platforms I'm not sure what drew me to this one, other than curiosity based on ITVX's minimal blurb:
Their poster also had an image of three figures on a rowing boat at night, with an island looming in the background as one of the figures holds a torch. It looked moody and atmospheric which added to the appeal
Having no expectations and foreknowledge was a big help with this film (I hadn't even heard of it until last night). It drew me in to a world that felt extremely truthful and authentic while at the same time being so outside my realm of experience that it might as well have been set on an alien planet, but for the relationships which were completely identifiable. The lack of gloss is appreciated. It tells that this is an independent film, far removed from Hollywood, because it feels European in its sensibilities. It helps, I'm sure, that it's set in remote Missouri a region depicted here as harsh, unforgiving and occasionally brutal.
It's subtly done, but the film looks wonderful. There's a nostalgic grey-brown hue that evokes the feeling of looking through an album of family photos taken in the 1970s (and, indeed, we do that very thing at one point in the film), which made me feel mysteriously connected to this world.
Each time we go indoors, it's like going to a distant relative's home, a place where you may or may not be welcome, and where shotguns lean against walls within eyesight and where groups of extended family members stare intimidatingly. And this is a place where everyone is related to everyone, and not always happy about it. The mostly unsympathetic people who operate in this world are unpredictable. It feels those who are closest might become violent at any moment, and those who seem threatening might be those who are most needed. And this is reinforced by what's seen on-screen.
Survival feels like the name of the game. Lawrence's character struggles to make ends meet and we see her teaching her kids skills such as shooting and skinning squirrels for food. Such scenes were surprisingly tasteful, showing just enough for us to get the idea. I'm extremely squeamish (phobic, even) when it comes to dead animals on screen, but I found myself watching that skinning scene with a kind of detached fascination. That's what this film did for me.
Even though it had both this didn't feel like watching a plot or story, so much as becoming immersed in this world for a while. It's very prosaic and kitchen sink as we watch these people go about their daily life, almost like British soap opera at its bleakest and most humdrum (think early Brookside). I didn't consider the performances because for the duration I was there, I didn't think of things being scripted or acted. I thought of things as simply being.
To say more than this is to spoil the film. It's not a comfortable watch, but I found it a surprisingly easy one. Compelling and grimly satisfying, this one went by very quickly and is well worth a view.
- Awards
- 27
Zardoz (1974)
Based on images and perhaps a few clips I had already seen, I started watching this film with the wrong expectations.
To me it seemed like an entertainingly atrocious cult film that every self-respecting fan of seventies cinema needed to watch at least once, and for the first 10 or 15 minutes it looked like I was going to get exactly that.
But as the story unfolds from one wondrous and eccentric scene into the next it becomes clear that this is not a piece of half-baked rubbish to laugh at.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's deeply profound, but it does tap into the interest in cult-following and alternative ideologies that seems so strongly connected with the late 1960s and 1970s.
Whatever you make of the stories and/or its characters, I think ZARDOZ has a lot to offer.
It's a film with great rhythm, plenty of intensity, it never runs out of steam and not once did I get the impression that the actors don't believe in what they are doing - the kitsch and bizarre goings-on notwithstanding.
The film takes itself seriously enough, but not to the extent that it becomes its own sounding board or critic - and it feels perfectly all right to laugh at whatever moment of ridiculously ceremonial posturing.
Apparently it was made on a relatively low budget but that takes nothing away from its cinematic awesomeness, and once again it proves that a lot can be achieved with camera technique and physical trickery.
It goes without saying that Sean Connery's hairy, in-your-face masculinity and Charlotte Rampling as the cool bitch in white boots are a winning combination.
Logan's Run (1976)
Logan's story takes place only 19 years before Sean Connery's adventure - I found that peculiar - and just like the intelligence witches in ZARDOZ they are living in a big bubble that protects them from the post-apocalyptic outside world.
There's even some overlapping in themes: eternal youth (and eternal elderly for those who need to be punished) versus the never-growing-old-policy in Logan's world.
It's a fascist world with soft-core undercurrents and perhaps even with a nod to the Baghwan cult, but Logan's Run looks way too clean, more like school kids on a day off.
Nevertheless, it looks like a lot of effort has been made to create their physical world. One set looks like an abandoned shopping mall dressed up like Epcot Center, and everything glows and bleeps and with buttons for identification. In other words, the disco interpretation of "science" fiction.
A super-naff computer needs to know everything and yet refuses to process any new information. Such a contrast with Proteus in Demon Seed.
Citizens are required to perform a ceremonial suicide shortly before they reach the age of 30, which will increase their chance for "renewal", probably another word for "reincarnation".
And this is all very well filmed but I would expect it to be more sinister and grotesque.
Some citizens have second thoughts and run away and hide in the outskirts of the dome where they cannot be found (?).
Like many sci-fi stories it sets itself up for a much ado about nothing scenario: the realisation that we're not yet ready for the future and that the world as we know it is still the best option for humans. Oceans, trees, cats, what more do you want.
And so it takes a second apocalypse to bring Logan's people back to where they really belong and where they are allowed to grow old.
The most lively characters are played by Richard Jordan and Peter Ustinov but they can't prevent the film from being sluggish and stilted.
It's not a matter of what should or shouldn't be in the film, and on the surface of it I think it mostly succeeds in what it sets out to do (depending on the ambition) but it just doesn't have any swing.
I often found myself mentally pushing the story, dialogue and characters forwards.
Which brings me to the obvious conclusion: this should have been a musical.
Based on images and perhaps a few clips I had already seen, I started watching this film with the wrong expectations.
To me it seemed like an entertainingly atrocious cult film that every self-respecting fan of seventies cinema needed to watch at least once, and for the first 10 or 15 minutes it looked like I was going to get exactly that.
But as the story unfolds from one wondrous and eccentric scene into the next it becomes clear that this is not a piece of half-baked rubbish to laugh at.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's deeply profound, but it does tap into the interest in cult-following and alternative ideologies that seems so strongly connected with the late 1960s and 1970s.
Whatever you make of the stories and/or its characters, I think ZARDOZ has a lot to offer.
It's a film with great rhythm, plenty of intensity, it never runs out of steam and not once did I get the impression that the actors don't believe in what they are doing - the kitsch and bizarre goings-on notwithstanding.
The film takes itself seriously enough, but not to the extent that it becomes its own sounding board or critic - and it feels perfectly all right to laugh at whatever moment of ridiculously ceremonial posturing.
Apparently it was made on a relatively low budget but that takes nothing away from its cinematic awesomeness, and once again it proves that a lot can be achieved with camera technique and physical trickery.
It goes without saying that Sean Connery's hairy, in-your-face masculinity and Charlotte Rampling as the cool bitch in white boots are a winning combination.
Logan's Run (1976)
Logan's story takes place only 19 years before Sean Connery's adventure - I found that peculiar - and just like the intelligence witches in ZARDOZ they are living in a big bubble that protects them from the post-apocalyptic outside world.
There's even some overlapping in themes: eternal youth (and eternal elderly for those who need to be punished) versus the never-growing-old-policy in Logan's world.
It's a fascist world with soft-core undercurrents and perhaps even with a nod to the Baghwan cult, but Logan's Run looks way too clean, more like school kids on a day off.
Nevertheless, it looks like a lot of effort has been made to create their physical world. One set looks like an abandoned shopping mall dressed up like Epcot Center, and everything glows and bleeps and with buttons for identification. In other words, the disco interpretation of "science" fiction.
A super-naff computer needs to know everything and yet refuses to process any new information. Such a contrast with Proteus in Demon Seed.
Citizens are required to perform a ceremonial suicide shortly before they reach the age of 30, which will increase their chance for "renewal", probably another word for "reincarnation".
And this is all very well filmed but I would expect it to be more sinister and grotesque.
Some citizens have second thoughts and run away and hide in the outskirts of the dome where they cannot be found (?).
Like many sci-fi stories it sets itself up for a much ado about nothing scenario: the realisation that we're not yet ready for the future and that the world as we know it is still the best option for humans. Oceans, trees, cats, what more do you want.
And so it takes a second apocalypse to bring Logan's people back to where they really belong and where they are allowed to grow old.
The most lively characters are played by Richard Jordan and Peter Ustinov but they can't prevent the film from being sluggish and stilted.
It's not a matter of what should or shouldn't be in the film, and on the surface of it I think it mostly succeeds in what it sets out to do (depending on the ambition) but it just doesn't have any swing.
I often found myself mentally pushing the story, dialogue and characters forwards.
Which brings me to the obvious conclusion: this should have been a musical.
- Awards
- 27
Glass Onion (2022)
The whodunit part in this story takes a bit of a backseat and it's more about exploring and exposing the characters.
My heart sank a little when the covid-masks showed up. Thankfully they didn't keep them, and if the script was staged in such way that it would keep the actors apart as much as possible then I didn't notice it.
The comment about wokeness early on in the film actually sounds more dated than the pandemic.
The characters are very colourful and performed in a slightly eccentric way, which usually works very well for this type of lighthearted crime drama.
There are several funny details, like the hourly ♪DONG!♫ sound supposedly "composed by Philip Glass", and also Angela Lansbury playing murder mysteries on Zoom.
It looks very well made and there's not a single moment in it that isn't entertaining, but it lacks a sense of danger and eeriness and therefore it still doesn't quite match the magnificence of the seventies Poirot classics.
But I think I like it better than the first KNIVES OUT.
The whodunit part in this story takes a bit of a backseat and it's more about exploring and exposing the characters.
My heart sank a little when the covid-masks showed up. Thankfully they didn't keep them, and if the script was staged in such way that it would keep the actors apart as much as possible then I didn't notice it.
The comment about wokeness early on in the film actually sounds more dated than the pandemic.
The characters are very colourful and performed in a slightly eccentric way, which usually works very well for this type of lighthearted crime drama.
There are several funny details, like the hourly ♪DONG!♫ sound supposedly "composed by Philip Glass", and also Angela Lansbury playing murder mysteries on Zoom.
It looks very well made and there's not a single moment in it that isn't entertaining, but it lacks a sense of danger and eeriness and therefore it still doesn't quite match the magnificence of the seventies Poirot classics.
But I think I like it better than the first KNIVES OUT.
- Awards
- 9
I saw KNIVES OUT in the cinema when it was released; I liked it well enough but never gave it any further thought and had no real interest in the sequels. But the universe decided to give me the flu right before Xmas wrecking my holiday plans; with not much else to do, I watched all three back-to-back.
I liked the first the most, didn't care for the second very much, and mostly enjoyed the third. With all three movies, I knew whodunit within literally seconds of the character appearing on screen. All three movies follow an obvious trope
the most prominent actor is the guilty one. It's so predictable, it feels like it's part of the contract negotiations.
- Awards
- 20
The Karate Kid (2010)
I actually thought I was sitting down to watch the original when I put this on, but I hadn't seen this one before so I stayed with it.
It's an enjoyable enough update but I know I'm not the first to ask why the title wasn't changed to The Kung Fu Kid - especially when the kid in question practically yells at his mother: "It's not karate!!"
I actually thought I was sitting down to watch the original when I put this on, but I hadn't seen this one before so I stayed with it.
It's an enjoyable enough update but I know I'm not the first to ask why the title wasn't changed to The Kung Fu Kid - especially when the kid in question practically yells at his mother: "It's not karate!!"