Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 23:52:43 GMT 1
THE 39 STEPS (1959) 4/5.
A British thriller that's a remake of the 1935 Alfred Hitchcock film, loosely based on the novel, THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS, by John Buchan.
Great fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 2:23:12 GMT 1
Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life (2016). 4/10 avoid it. The title sounds accurate, though.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on May 30, 2020 6:49:59 GMT 1
Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019). It was surprisingly decent. I hope they don't try to do a 'gritty reboot' at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 7:07:48 GMT 1
Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019). It was surprisingly decent. I hope they don't try to do a 'gritty reboot' at some point. I'd pay to see that version. Would be hil-ar-i-ous!
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on May 30, 2020 16:39:45 GMT 1
INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) was on last night, one of my all time favorites
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on May 30, 2020 16:46:28 GMT 1
INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) was on last night, one of my all time favorites Did Pullman do the speech or Trump?
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 3, 2020 4:35:23 GMT 1
Didn’t mention the movies I saw over the weekend…but one of them was Back to the Future (1985) for, I kid you not, the first time since I was a kid. I loved it just as much as I did then.
The other was The Invisible Man (2020). That, unfortunately, wasn’t half as good. Will try to post a review at some point, maybe, we’ll see.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 4, 2020 21:26:15 GMT 1
OK, The Invisible Man (2020, dir. Leigh Wannell). I wanted to see this in theaters back in February because it sounded fun and was getting great reviews—just for corona-rona to hit. Then I tried to watch it through streaming (I’m getting Apple TV free for a year and five free movies as long as they’re under $5.99), and it was $20! Anyway, eventually Apple’s price reduced to $3.99, so I got to use one of my five free movies on it. Which is all to say that I was really looking forward to it. And…? OK, it’s not bad. I don’t regret watching it, but do I regret using one of my free movies on it? Ehh, sorta, yeah. The directing’s better than the script; to be honest, the script is just plain lousy. Take a plot element like the will, which shows up early on. Elisabeth Moss’ heroine is called in by her abusive dead husband’s brother (!) to sign off on a will with a stipulation that to receive the money she can’t commit a crime. It’s so far from reality—both sides would have lawyers, probate would tear apart the stipulation. Not to mention I’m pretty sure in California the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the deceased spouse’s property no matter what the will says. Sure, those may seem like minor nitpicks, but they keep coming back throughout the movie. When cops are investigating Moss, for example, one of the investigators is her best friend, who’s deeply involved in the case. Apparently conflicts of interest don’t apply in Frisco? The movie has so many things like that, in fact, that the viewer just can’t suspend his disbelief. And that ridiculous stipulation is the most obvious Chekhov’s gun ever—and it plays out exactly as you expect it when you watch the will scene. That points to an even more damaging element in the script: you can see nearly every plot twist coming from a mile away. That flaw seems even more pronounced after I saw Last Passenger, a movie that takes time to tell its story in delightfully unexpected ways. To be sure, I’m not calling for big, Sixth Sense-esque twists that make you reconsider everything that came before—just little surprises that let you know the writer and director are one step ahead of the viewer. Without those surprises, the viewer quickly becomes bored. I know I did. With all that said, the movie has one major surprise up its sleeve—and delivers it brilliantly. Even though I don’t recommend the movie, that single twist is so good that I don’t want to give it away. I’ll just say it’s the Chinese restaurant scene—and anyone who’s seen the movie will know what I’m talking about. Beautifully directed and a huge shocker. Alas, that’s the best part. I saw the supposed twist ending coming early on (the will scene, in fact), yet it still feels tacked-on—and unfinished. How did the husband get in the secret room? How did he fake his death? Why do we need any of this twist? Writer-director Leigh Wannell makes a clever choice early on not to show the husband’s abuse (with one jump-scare of an exception, which is effective). All well and fine—but when we finally meet the husband at the end, the actor isn’t convincing as an abuser. To be fair, that could be Wannell’s point—abusers don’t seems like abusers, which tends to be true—but we should have seen rage in the husband’s eyes, or something like that. He’s trying to seem unctuous and comes off as mildly irritating. In spite of all that, I mostly liked the direction, which was part-Hitchcock, part-John Carpenter (amusingly, the parts in the house felt like Halloween, the parts in the hospital felt like Halloween II), part-early M. Night Shyamalan ( Signs). The opening sequence is largely silent and beautifully directed—the best part of the movie other than that one big twist. The acting was fine: not especially memorable, but fine. Unfortunately, the writing was so weak that it sunk the movie as a whole. Too bad. On the other hand, Back to the Future is great!
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Jun 5, 2020 1:11:24 GMT 1
Didn’t mention the movies I saw over the weekend…but one of them was Back to the Future (1985) for, I kid you not, the first time since I was a kid. I loved it just as much as I did then. The other was The Invisible Man (2020). That, unfortunately, wasn’t half as good. Will try to post a review at some point, maybe, we’ll see. I'm in that same boat, I've never seen Back to the Future. So perhaps not the exact same boat, but a similar boat. I've seen so many chunks of it on so many occasions, I feel like I've seen it but I've never consciously watched it from start to finish. I had a chef once who was so aghast at this news he threatened to lend me the trilogy. I love being threatened with a good time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2020 6:43:12 GMT 1
YOU have excellent taste. I love this movie. Was it your first time seeing it?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jun 7, 2020 16:54:14 GMT 1
YOU have excellent taste. I love this movie. Was it your first time seeing it? I have seen it many times. It’s one of my favorite films. I bought it for five dollars on iTunes one year, and I’ve watched it dozens of times since then. It was an excellent investment.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 7, 2020 18:24:17 GMT 1
North by Northwest (1959)
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jun 7, 2020 21:45:41 GMT 1
BATTLESHIP (2012) was on last night, not as good as I remembered it
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 7, 2020 21:54:08 GMT 1
BATTLESHIP (2012) was on last night, not as good as I remembered it You remembered it as good?
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jun 7, 2020 22:00:24 GMT 1
BATTLESHIP (2012) was on last night, not as good as I remembered it You remembered it as good? yes, i liked it quite a bit when i saw it in theater
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 8, 2020 17:00:49 GMT 1
YOU have excellent taste. I love this movie. Was it your first time seeing it? It’s exceptional, even down to Stanwyck’s phony-looking wig. The light in Robinson’s eyes when he figures out the discrepancy that ruins the brilliant murder plot is one of my favorite movie moments.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 8, 2020 17:54:32 GMT 1
I watched Obsession (1976, dir. Brian de Palma) on Saturday and My Man Godfrey last night (1936, dir. Gregory La Cava). MINOR SPOILERS for both. Godfrey is such a celebrated classic that it’s hard to know what to say about it that hasn’t already been said, but somehow I went my whole life without seeing it ( mea maxima culpa). If you’re the way I was before yesterday, watch it! It’s brilliant—hilarious, charming, with one of William Powell’s greatest performances. Something I found curious, though, is that for a supposed “screwball comedy,” it isn’t particularly screwball; the Bullock family are nutty, but they’re not bouncing all around the house, and the jokes don’t come a mile a minute the way they do in, say, Some Like It Hot (is that screwball, though?) or Bringing Up Baby. They’re wittier and more measured (not a bad thing), which is more reminiscent of Lubitsch than many Lubitsch imitations (including Billy Wilder’s) are—which just goes to show the dangers of (sub)genre distinctions, I suppose. The two major twists (about Godfrey himself and about the pearls), by the way, are unexpected delights. My only real criticism is that Powell had more chemistry with Gail Patrick than he did with real-life ex-wife Carole Lombard! Anyway, what a great movie. —————————— On the other hand, I’m still not quite sure what to make of Obsession. For some reason, I’m a sucker for Brian de Palma’s bizarre blend of obvious Hitchcock references, obsessively-reused filmmaking gimmicks (slow motion, split screen, swirling camera), and hysterical melodramatics. Paul Schrader’s script here is clearly a Vertigo redux, as he and de Palma intended—yet the movie feels nothing like Vertigo. It’s actually quite remarkable: the general story, music (Bernard Herrmann revisits his Vertigo score), and even specific plot points (letter as explanation of plot, protagonist thinks events are supernatural) are all Vertigo, yet Obsession for all that looks and feels completely different. Curiously enough, I don’t feel those changes work. Vertigo is haunting; Obsession is clearly supposed to be haunting—but isn’t. Ironically, that’s because Vertigo tackles obsession better than Obsession does: we see Stewart losing his mind step-by-step over the course of the film and totally believe, are consumed by, his madness. When he sees Kim Novak remade as Madeleine, it’s horrifying. That scene creates a pit in my stomach every time I see it. In Obsession, meanwhile, Cliff Robertson just seems to fall in love with a girl who resembles his late wife. Despite how much de Palma and Schrader (and, dear God, Herrmann) try to hammer into our heads that he’s obsessed, we don’t see any real obsessional behavior. We’re kind of asked to take it on faith that Robertson really was madly in love with his wife and will do anything to get her back. Take, for example, Geneviève Bujold’s transformation into Robertson’s wife. Unlike in the Hitchcock, here she transforms herself into the lost love, which is supposed to be a twist on the expected Vertigo setup. All well and fine, but in Vertigo that retransformation was the culmination of Stewart’s obsession. With no comparable scene, it’s hard to believe that Robertson is truly obsessed. And, without that, the movie’s just a basic mystery thriller. As a mystery thriller, it’s OK: the twist ending is obvious, but I think de Palma intended it to be obvious. The two settings—New Orleans and Florence—are moody, creepy, and gorgeously filmed. (That said, setting this kind of story in these two evocative places, rather than a conventional modern metropolis as Hitchcock did, reminds the viewer that this is melodrama, not life. Another point to Hitchcock.) The opening credits, amusingly enough, are great. De Palma has blasted Robertson’s performance, but I thought Robertson was pretty good—not Stewart, but pretty good. Herrmann’s music is so overheated and bombastic that it can become somewhat hilarious, especially when it’s blasted over a shot of Robertson just walking around, but it’s an excellent composition nonetheless. The beautiful Bujold is first-class. All in all, though, there’s so much that’s good here but doesn’t build to anything (the tomb Robertson builds, for example). Ebert wrote: “Sometimes overwrought excess can be its own reward. If ‘Obsession’ had been even a little more subtle, had made even a little more sense on some boring logical plane, it wouldn’t have worked at all.” I agree with his point, but without that emotional connection, without convincing us that Robertson truly was obsessed, I don’t think Obsession managed that rewardingly overwrought excess. It’s lurid fun—but forgettable, and that’s something you could never say about Vertigo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 17:57:29 GMT 1
YOU have excellent taste. I love this movie. Was it your first time seeing it? It’s exceptional, even down to Stanwyck’s phony-looking wig. The light in Robinson’s eyes when he figures out the discrepancy that ruins the brilliant murder plot is one of my favorite movie moments. It's my second favorite film noir- right behind The Third Man.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jun 8, 2020 18:54:43 GMT 1
It’s exceptional, even down to Stanwyck’s phony-looking wig. The light in Robinson’s eyes when he figures out the discrepancy that ruins the brilliant murder plot is one of my favorite movie moments. It's my second favorite film noir- right behind The Third Man. second is behind Third?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 18:55:33 GMT 1
It's my second favorite film noir- right behind The Third Man. second is behind Third? And Who's on first!
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 10, 2020 22:05:44 GMT 1
On Friday, I watched 36 Hours (1965, writ-dir. George Seaton), with James Garner, Eva Marie Saint, and Rod Taylor. For about an hour, it seems like it’s going to be great. Garner is an Army major right before D-Day, and the Germans come up with a plan to get the location of the landing out of him—by kidnapping him and then convincing him he’s gotten amnesia for which he’s recovering in a military hospital, the war is over, the year is 1950, and the Allies won, and he should reminisce with his “old buddy” Maj. Gerber (Taylor) about D-Day. (Not a spoiler. We’re in on the con from the get-go, for obvious reasons.) It’s an ingenious plot, cleverly extrapolated from “Beware of the Dog,” a intriguing but merely anecdotal Roald Dahl story. Most ingeniously, the Germans come up with an elaborate scenario of what happened after “the Americans won,” with a still-living Franklin D. Roosevelt and—bravura!—a President Henry Wallace. Almost as ingenious is how they make the con work, which somewhat makes the plot a mirror-universe version of Mission: Impossible. Again, we’re in on it from the beginning, so we’re constantly in suspense as to whether or not Garner will figure it out and we can constantly chuckle about how the plotters “got it wrong” from our perspective. Taylor’s chief plotter is so convincing that even though we know beyond any doubt he’s lying, we like him and enjoy his “friendship” with Garner. It’s a great role, and a great performance. (The often-underrated Garner is equally good and emotionally effective. Saint as Garner’s “nurse” is, unfortunately, less so.) Though the comparison may seem a bit odd, some of it struck me as proto-Philip K. Dick: alternate universe (more or less), what is real?, friends and loved ones who may not actually love you (or even be real), mental illness. (MAJOR SPOILER) {Spoiler}Halfway though, Garner does figure it out—in a way that, again, I can only call ingenious. Right before the Germans kidnapped him, he got a paper cut. When he’s putting salt on his food at the “hospital,” the salt gets in the cut, which starts stinging. 6 years and he has the same paper cut in the same place? Alas, after that it all goes to blazes, becoming a pretty basic, and dull, escape-from-POW-camp movie. There is one mildly clever twist, but it won’t be too surprising if viewers think about it for a minute. Taylor and Garner are still good, but the whole thing falls apart, even becomes deathly dull. Not that that’s a huge surprise: I couldn’t imagine how on earth to follow up that brilliant first hour, but the drop in quality is so precipitous that all in all the movie cannot be considered the masterpiece it starts off as. Even Seaton’s capable direction, which suggests Hitchcock (and, in some shots, Carol Reed) more than Stanley Donen and Peter Stone did in their more on-the-nose Hitchcock imitations ( Charade and Mirage, respectively), soon falls apart. Again, Saint isn’t that great here, but she’s fine. Dimitri Tiomkin’s music sounds good during the credits but can be a bit ugly during the film itself. Though the plot prefigures The Prisoner, some early scenes reminded me of the Roger Moore Saint. In sum, that first hour is brilliant stuff. If only the rest of the movie lived up to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 0:03:25 GMT 1
Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the theatrically released pilot movie for the CG cartoon. It's... bleh, compared to the cartoon it spawned.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 14, 2020 3:52:35 GMT 1
I’ve written before here that I have a somewhat inexplicable fondness for Liam Neeson b-thrillers, even bad ones. Non-Stop (2014, dir. Jaume Collet-Serra), luckily, is a good one. Yes, it’s ridiculous. Of course it’s ridiculous. Yes, it is the closest thing to a b-movie these days (with more budget than the great b-movies of Hollywood’s Golden Age ever dreamed of). But it’s a fun ride, anchored by the always-reliable and always-entertaining Neeson in the exact same characterization as The Grey, Unknown, The Commuter, and Taken. Neeson is that rare blend of movie star and character actor, and always has presence, that element lacking in so many even solid actors these days. To be fair, this is not as good as Last Passenger, one of my new favorite thrillers, or even as Unknown, my favorite of the Neeson b-thrillers, with which it shares the same director. In particular, Collet-Serra here isn’t as inventive as in Unknown, where he showed a Hitchcockian flair: he tries Hitchcockerie again here, with a confined setting this time, but it looks as blasé as many action movies do these days. Again, though, it’s a lot of fun. Despite the silliness, too, the script has some fairly impressive twists (as in Unknown), with the location of the bomb, disguised as a red herring being a particular surprise. I fell hook, line, and sinker for one red herring, which showed a good handle on predicting viewer psychology. That said, the plot does have multiple downsides as well: The main culprit didn’t need an accomplice, for one thing, and the identity of the accomplice didn’t seem believable. The script never explains how the captain was killed: if Julianne Moore was the last person to enter the bathroom, how did the schoolteacher-hijacker or his accomplice fire the poison dart into the cockpit? And how did the hijacker send the texts? Worst of all, the motive is such a disappointment, and so stupid, that it almost wrecks the fun. Ultimately, though, it doesn’t, and I really enjoyed this one. Hoping Collet-Serra, who definitely has talent, moves on to bigger and better projects; he directed the new Jungle Cruise movie, so that seems likely.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 18, 2020 6:32:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jun 18, 2020 6:35:10 GMT 1
love that one, and also STID
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 18, 2020 6:37:28 GMT 1
love that one, and also STID
I actually may watch "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" at some point tomorrow.
I really liked Peter Weller's performance in it as the Evil Admiral.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jun 18, 2020 6:38:01 GMT 1
love that one, and also STID
I actually may watch "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" at some point tomorrow.
I really liked Peter Weller's performance in it as the Evil Admiral.
agreed! he was awesome
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 18, 2020 17:54:27 GMT 1
The Devil and Daniel Webster.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Jun 18, 2020 21:03:45 GMT 1
The Devil and Daniel Webster. Fantastic film.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 18, 2020 21:25:29 GMT 1
Finally saw Extraction. I didn't think very much of it. Other than a couple of good action scenes, I found it very boring and had a hard time paying attention to the "story". Wait.... there was a story? No, thats cant be true.
|
|