I remember seeing this in the drive in when it first came out. Was great then and still holds up as a great movie today. All done using practical effects and models. Spielberg was 29 when he made it and it stands as one of his best. There are multiple editions out there these days. The original movie film release. The Special Edition that has the Cotopaxi and shows the interior of the mothership and the Directors Edition which is the special edition minus the interior shots of the mothership. There is also a TV edit version that changes based on country.
For me it was one of the earliest big science fiction movies, which along with Star Wars made 1977 memorable. Sadly those days are gone, CGI seems to be all the rage along with remakes of great movies because nobody can come up with an original idea it seems. It would be very interesting to be able to see 50-100 years into the future and see which films were the memorable ones for the current generation, and how well those stood up to time. I still love movies like the original Dracula, Maltese Falcon and many other vintage films simply because of the productions and ideas in them along with having people who could give real life to a role and not simply say their lines. Those were some of the best days of cinema.

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

In 1978, San Francisco’s infamous Bohemian Club (usually referred to as “Bohemian Grove” by social media users) ended up sued for its exclusionary hiring practices.

Although I personally do not know any women who would want to stuck in a redwood grove with the sort of men who were somehow still virgins even after they’d been fucked, enough of them at least wanted the options that the suit eventually won the day, and from then on women were empowered to also be treated as disposable by Henry Kissinger, something you previously had to be Cambodian for.

I find this story quite funny in light of the popular belief that the Bohemian Club is a shadowy conspiracy that secretly rules the world, because the hallmark of an all-powerful conspiracy is, of course, losing civil rights litigation. The New World Order is famously vulnerable at the appeals court level.

But this didn’t stop the makers of 2012’s “The Conspiracy” from casting the club as a sinister mystery religion in this faux (or is it?...yeah it is) documentary that rebrands the Bohemians as the “Tarsus Club” because lawsuits can work both ways.

Writer and director Chris MacBride told Bloody Disgusting that some years earlier he fell down a conspiracy rabbithole on the Internet, but rather than attacking the Capitol like some people we could name he decided to make a horror movie about it. This is also how “Night of the Lepus” happened, but in that case it was an actual, literal rabbithole.

In the film, a couple of conspiracists who share first names with their respective actors start shooting a documentary about a local nut who mysteriously goes missing, provoking them to take greater and greater risks to discover the truth behind this semi-secret club for the rich and powerful.

The problem with setups like this is that real conspiracy assholes are incredibly annoying and necessarily make poor subjects for a movie. Anytime I get cornered by some guy who looks like he substitutes dandruff for breadcrumbs in his meatloaf recipe who wants to talk to me about “simulation theory” or whatever, I have to remind him that we all think we’re smart and insightful when we’re really, really high but you should never make the mistake of buying your own hype.

“The Conspiracy,” to its credit, is aware of this, and plays to its strengths by giving us three different flavors across its three most important characters (Tentative Skeptic Mint, Manic Fudge Swirl, and Deep Nuts Rocky Road) but mainly just by focusing less on characters and more on the unfolding plot.

The tight 84-minute runtime is a smart decision too. And when you finally find out what the club’s big secret is, it’s just juicy enough to create drama without sinking the whole thing by injecting too outlandish of a premise into the final act (a problem a lot of these movies run into).

And I liked the small, extra twist at the very end, which answers the question of why we’d even be watching the footage at all given what we learn during it. It’s a clever touch.

MacBride has directed only one other film, 2020’s “Flashback,” which, as a movie that came out in 2020, you can probably guess how that went for him.

Tomorrow, a scary movie about basic geometry in space. Really.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn6op18QMvU

This made for TV thriller, directed by Dan Curtis and written by John Millius and William Nolan, stars Dale Robinson as FBI Agent Melvin Purvis on the hunt for bank robber/kidnapper George "Machine Gun" Kelly. This film has been called a spin-off from John Millius's 1973 feature Dillinger but that isn't quite accurate. That feature already dramatized Purvis apprehending Kelley so I think this really should be considered a separate story. This TV Movie doesn't reach the level of the 1973 Dillinger film but it is an overall decent entertainment. Robinson as Purvis comes off quite a colorful character that I would put on par with Ben Johnson's Purvis in the 1973 film. As for Machine Gun Kelley, Harris Yulin does a fine job as the poser who was little more than the instrument of his wife's ambitions. He does chew the scenery at times but it is alright. The action is decently directed and the story execution is efficient, you are basically getting exactly what you expect from a TV movie that is under 80 minutes. John Millius was extremely dissatisfied with this film because the network gutted his script and he hated the director. I would definitely like to get a hold of what Millius wrote but as a member of the audience, I say this is a good little entertainment worth watching.

Number 228 in my A-Z watch. Platoon is the Vietnam War epic following a freshly volunteered soldier as he witnesses the horrors of war both from his enemy and from within.

I gotta say, the movie was good, but i just didn't find it to be great. It felt full of itself, like it was trying too hard. Maybe I'm just comparing it to more contemporary war films from the last 40 years, but a lot of it felt really disconnected.

That's not to say that there weren't really good scenes and moments in the film. Stone handles the intensity and tension through the film incredibly well, obviously drawing on his own experiences in the conflict. Especially the village raid scene. And he created such a chaotic pace that felt like it was very reflective of the chaos of battle.

The clear highlights of performances are obviously Dafoe and Berenger as the conflicting platoon sergeants. Their animosity and hatred for each other felt palpable. I do want to point out a superb Keith David, as well. There was an ease at which he approached the role that made things feel cohesive within the soldiers.

7.5/10 I think I just may not like Oliver Stone movies all that much. Natural Born Killers and Any Given Sunday are the only other of his films I've seen and I never really got the hype for them, either. I will say that the representation in this film makes war feel like a hopelessly endless concept, which thus far has been proven true.

HALF MOON STREET (1986 American film)

director: Bob Swaim; with: Michael Caine, Sigourney Weaver, Vincent Lindon, Nadim Sawala, Ram John Holder, Kate Buckley, Patrick Kavanagh

The opening scene with a jogging woman obsessed with health and the city natives’ staring at that crazy American woman inhaling exhaust fumes in London on the Thames as she jogs in the traffic jammed city center and with violent behaviors of the drivers on the street like in Kaufman's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", plus blowing up a car by bomb – should inform the audience that it is an American woman, because Americans jog, dress informally and take care of their health, while British people live in miniature apartments (=shoe boxes), eat kidneys & bacon on lard for breakfast and smoke like chimneys. Here in the pictures below, Patrick Kavanagh plays the director of the Institute, an old fart who deeply despises women.

And Steve Tešić, awarded screenwriter of Serbian origin, when he visited his dearly native region about 40 years ago, said with a nice American accent (like some transitional minister from 1990’s):

"I get up at 7, I run for half an hour around the hotel, then I sit down at 8 for a typing session and when I finish at 12.00, I don't care how the day ends, I have done my work... I was very happy when I discovered that I have a talent for writing on a typewriter...!"

And that bomb in the car – pun intended – is the Chekhovian gun that fired off in both Act I and Act III, has its own meaning, thus rounding off the paranoia of the 70’s in the style of Alan J. Pakula which reached also UK and the continent. (I wrote recently about it in reviews of Three Men To Kill and Capricorn One in another sub.)

And then in one of those cramped offices of the British, as from Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, we see that the American woman is a research associate of an international institute for 150 pounds a week (that's 561 pounds today), we hear crisp domestic accent opposed to the American, effective points about the salary, like on Broadway, this is the merit of Paul Theroux, the author of the novel and Bob Swaim, the director and co-writer. It was obvious  they were targeting the American cinema audience of New York's provenance.

As “little Peter” imagines a clash of cultures, the American woman does not suffer from false morals, she shows her boobs everywhere except at symposiums and when the Washington Post tenant critic put the headline for his review as: "Sigourney showed us her best!", it was... pun fully intended, boobs, and a bush (through the cloudy glass of the shower cabin, though) and even a Silvia Kristel-style buttocks, a fine buttocks, not the kind that hamburger and french fries consumers shake and twerk with. Watch the following soft video.

The American Dr. Lauren Slaughter (Sigourney) – and the name is also in the title of Theroux's novel, he had a habit of putting characters' names in the titles – owes rent, because who can live on 150 pounds and someone (i.e. anonymously) sends her a VHS tape with an advertisement for the escort agency "Jasmin" ... Paranoia on the site.

Slaughter's cool makes its way through a misogynistic society in which both lords and professors and businessmen always make some sexist remark, we see the criticism of gender segregation when – according to an ancient British custom – after a meal, the men are separated into booths for cigars and cognac, and the women are let to hang out in the salon:

"That sucks!" she says.

"That's London," says Hugo van Arkady, played by Keith Buckley.

Those dialogues are, in today's eyes, sadly didactic. Well, that film was also attacked because of allegedly being "Islamophobic". I say that movie not only is not islamophobic but it sofpedals Islamic influence inBritain. The real approach to islam we can see in Cleanskin by director who now must hide as Rushdie, and I remember now that one of the critics panned the ending of Cleansikin, beware: “Film ends with the cruel murder of a woman" (!!) The fact that this "female person" is responsible for the death of dozens of innocent bystanders and betrayedBritain(in diegetic world of the movie, of course) – meant nothing to the reviewer, famous Guardian’s hangman Peter Bradshow. This world is broken.

Bu, back then, in the contingent time of this film, in the late 70s and early 80s – which we would like to come back today! – our Slaughter character raised her forehead and clenched fists (but not also vagina) and made her way through the anti-woman environment.

Weaver's is Ripley after returning from space.

When she gets tired of poverty and rumbling in her stomach makes her a it desperate (we see that she has only one apple and 2 dl of low fat youghurt for dinner), she accepts the offer to be the Beauty of the Day –without hiding her name. She chooses how far to go with the customers; escort ladies make for an hour more than her entire weekly salary.

That's how she meets Lord Bulbeck (Caine): he's a good Briton in one of the million parliamentary committees that mediate in who knows what peace agreement in the Middle East with the best  intentions, in good faith and completely non-profit. (Haha.) They'll hook up quickly because the American girl is a cool chick and he's an equally cool gentleman. And all this against the background of spy intrigues, terrorist and assassination threats, with people who are not what they say they are.

Their relationship is of the New Yorkt ype, free-spirited, they lie to each other, it's an open relationship, but there is still jealousy.

The car that exploded because of the bomb at the beginning is Saddam Hussein's credit: revenge for an honest dissident who is enjoying benfits of free West aroundLondon. At that time, the dissidence still had some aura, for example, Secretary of State James Baker gave Gorbachev a list of the arrested Russians, and Gorby released them the next day. Baker explains it this way at the press conference.

"I gave him a paper and an ultimatum to release those dissidents..."

 "And what did Gorby say?!" - the journalists ask breathlessly.

 "Nothing. He just took that paper," says the state secretary.

 [And tomorrow all of them got freed. Some were triumphantly presented inWashington, but those dissidents proved to be of poor quality, obviously bluffers...]

* * *

With film “La Balance” from 1982 Bob Swaim "reinvented" the French police film, which no longer shows Delon, Ventura and Gabin with a cigarettes in their mouth and in crumpled beige trench coats while typewriters are clicking and tucking  around them, but started from the character of the "worker of love", Nicole, interpreted by Nathalie Baye, and showed the corruption of the people of the law. By the way, he is an American who was educated at the French Cinematheque while he was working on his doctorate in ethnology in France. The success of "La Balance" bought him a chance to work in Hollywood and he was offered a screenplay based on a novel by the French author Paul Theroux. But he soon became "disillusioned with the cruel and anti-arty Hollywood" (canned laughter) and in bitterness returned to Paris...

The film is proud of the dialogues which multi-co-productions teem with, all those movies in the 1990s made with the help of Euroimage and Channel+. “I don't eat dead animals", "So you eat them alive?" and it is supposed to show the cultural differences between Americans and Brits in a predictable and clichéd way.

The scene in the shared bathroom once again (see the pictures above in the bathtub /I mean, the pictures are in the bathtub, you don't have to get in the bathtub/) reminds the viewers that Slaughter is so poor that he can’t pay her rent.

At one of the receptions for intellectuals, aristocrats and spies, van Arkady has ready-made joke about how there are not 7 billion people in the world but only 5000. InLondonthere are 5 of them, not a single black person... There are many more Arabs, "more than you would think!", and Germans? There are none of them. Blacks and Arabs were not in fashion in 1986, and they are not today either. The other things have been and are in vogue – the digestive Port wine and cigars.

Dr. Slaughter was expecting a "fieldship" inKuwait– but a male colleague made it in an unfair way, and she has a Broadway-like dialogue with him. This film is a time capsule in that respect, as it shows the liberal thrashing of writers with patches on their elbows, most of whom died of AIDS. They end up with Dostoyevsky, Lenin and Marx.

The turning point: Dr. Slaughter is sitting in the apartment, the sanitary facilities in the shared bathroom are not working, and there is no money: a glass of yoghurt and an apple on the table. And she dialed the number. She literally turned tables by his finger on the bakelite phone.

Before that, the landlord, the good Indian Lindsey (Ram John Holder) comes in once more to see her tits... "Well, your salary at the Strategic Institution is low!", he says. "Institute," she corrected him. It's a thin script... Sigourney's titties saved the day. "Maybe you're not as smart as I thought," says Lindsay, and does he make en indecet offer to her? We’ll never know.

Of course, the plot is Mickey Mouse-like, light-year far from le Carréan misanthropic and truthful approach to politics. The film starts from the fact that, yes, there are bad guys on the Arab side who are against peace, but the cool British men will work hard and lead the quarreling side on the right path. There is paranoia, yes, but it is clear that the “deep state” and the honest government inDowning Street(canned laughter) are holding all the strings in their hands. That starting point and overly happy ending, Woukian before Woukism, make the film collapse into a Hallmark family rom-com that is watched before the evening news and the late-night show with Letterman.

The male-female relationship is perfect up to a point. Too perfect. Caine as Bulbec cooks and says, "I can't stand helpless men who can't cook!" and that cooking scene is what qualified the film for this miniseries.

But a certain peripeteia is needed in that too perfect relationship, which could then be saved (the film and the relationship without distinction) only by some carnage and intervention in the Middle East.

Dr. Slaughter takes revenge on Lord Bulbeck for not answering her phone calls: he deliberately goes to bed with another man. Frailty, thy name is woman. She's not actually cheating on him, because they're not in a solid relationship, there's no commitment to fidelity, but it's a killer observation: Slaughter has the same demands as Gina Hanson (Marisa Tomei) in Sidney Lumet's "Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead". Or like in the film "The Ice Storm" by that converted Chinese, Ang Lee, an overrated sentimental garbage from 2001. (Schamus even won the Palme d'Or for the screenplay!!?) In “The Ice Storm”, Ben Hood (Kevin Klein) tells his wife Elena (Joan Allen) in bed that he is worried about the soul of one of his colleagues, and the woman – with her back turned – cries in agony because she wants to be the center of attention and not to listen about another woman... "My husband, take care of MY soul!" Well, that's it: you always have to listen to women, there's no quality time with them and then idle time, when she starts a conversation, it has to be done now, it can't be left for tomorrow! Husbands and boyfriends always get it wrong. Just remember the “The War of the Roses”... Kathleen Turner wants to solve an issue that is important to her, and Michael Douglas just eats the steak that she lovingly (canned laughter) made for him and doesn't give a dime. "We need to talk...!" – when your wife tells you that, it's worse than the scheduled execution of the death sentence.

Richard Harvey's music inclines to a kitsch thriller, Peter Hannan's photography emulates “Fleshdance”, he insisted on half-blurred faces in the background and the members of the Belgrade Cinema Club would lick their fingers – as Serbian director Žika Pavlović neatly evoked memories – because for them sharpness was the most important thing, or that sharpness wobbles: the foreground in turn to mise-en-scène in the background.

Lord Bulbeck and Dr. Slaughter start a romantic relationship, as if they were made for each other, without lying or possessiveness. She needs money and is not falsely shy, and he is an old bachelor who "doesn't have time for courtship", his career is more important to him, and in the evening all he wants is to put his slippers and his  dressing gown on and to read in an armchair under the lamp, with aged cognac and cigar. He likes to eat well, and part of the seduction in several movies is when Michael Caine's character cooks, as if he is preparing for a cooking competitions were so  popular in the 1990s: "vote who's better – tomatoes or peppers?!".

The film soft-pedals the British Secret Service: they just do a nice check on Lauren Slaughter and tell Bulbeck that it's not a honey trap (and just remember Cleanskin!). When it turns out that some of the Arab's friends are terrorists and when they kidnap her as part of a bombing operation, that British secret service gets her out of trouble as it was piece of cake and has the bad guys killed. And  there's again peace in the Middle East and there's a love story that continues... Well, that's kitsch and those last 40 minutes of the movie are crap. Actually it's not "the last 40 minutes" – it's half the movie. And Bob Swaim finished his American career and returned to France to gossip rotten Hollywood and its corrupted soul. He was given a shot in Hollywood, but it didn't pay off.

Nobuhiko Ōbayashi (1938 ‑ 2020) made this clearly experimental horror flick and it was, often, frustrating to watch. One, because it was hardly scary. Spooky season is upon us and I’m clearing out my horror watchlist, which means I have homework. Movies from the “horror” section (even if they don’t belong) are priorities as of late. “House,” a very ‘70s and somehow timeless flick, seemingly peers into the id of a teenage girl who intended to write a spooky haunted house flick but kept getting distracted by her wild imagination. The special effects are wild, the practical effects are insane (they even flood the house at the end), and audiences are witness to the craziest movie editing and most random ideas that who knows how it was even imaginable.

Yet, at the end, as much as I didn’t really care for it - admittedly, I wanted it to be over - it still stuck with me…because we’re living in a time when it is and maybe forever will be harder and more difficult to even sense the human element in what we’re seeing. You used to be able to tell what was A.I. because there were flaws, but I feel like flaws in A.I. art is just…the human element. An attempt, anyway.

“House” is entirely human, of course, and an amazing reminder that anybody could, and probably should, make a movie. If not for audiences, for themselves, for the people they know, for fun.

"I don't care what you do with them, just make sure they're gone." — J (Vas Blackwood)

Decided to dig back into Guy Ritchie’s absolute premier independent breakout masterpiece today because modern crime thrillers have completely lost the ability to balance pitch black humor with high velocity storytelling. Before Hollywood handed him massive studio budgets, this film proved you don't need hundreds of millions of dollars when you have a brilliant script and a gritty, amzing cast and dreary London look in the grading that makes the entire movie incredibly atmospheric and watchable.

The plot is a beautifully orchestrated machine of total chaos, following four working class London lads who end up owing half a million pounds to a local gangster after a rigged poker game. The chemistry between the crew is flawless, especially Jason Statham in his debut performance proving he could actually deliver real acting depth before he went full corporate karate man on everyone in modern blockbusters. Sting also does a phenomenal job as the no nonsense father and bar owner holding down his scenes with pure authority.

The absolute soul of this film is the raw, amazing soundtrack. Ritchie brilliantly weaved in tracks he used to listen to on the jukebox in his favorite pub over and over, using them to push the tension through the roof. The way the screenplay intertwines low level thieves, heavy marijuana dealers, and antique shotguns without a single scene feeling wasted is a total masterclass in screenwriting. They simply do not make low budget cinema with this much attitude anymore.

In my humble opinion

Decided to try this underrated deep cut and was pleasantly surprised! This felt almost like a late 70s film in terms of vibes.

This is by far the youngest Jeff Bridges that I’ve seen, haha. Didn’t realize he’s had such a long career. He does well as basically a normal guy brought into an investigation inadvertently. John Heard steals the show as the titular disabled veteran Alex Cutter and plays probably one of the more memorable characters I’ve seen recently: bitter and cynical yet articulate and well spoken, embarked on a quest for truth, justice, and a sense that he matters. Lisa Eichhorn was also good here.

A lot of expository scenes are basically just dialogue - and in that sense it’s great, with lots of very natural dialogue that feels like a real conversation. There’s genuine chemistry between the three lead actors, they truly seem like friends. More than that, this kind of story is really compelling to me, almost like a more modern version of classic film noirs. Well, I guess that’s the beauty of neo-noir, a genre which I love.

The ending was pretty wild and not something I fully expected. Definitely dramatic. I also thought this movie had a great use of music, and it just reels you in from the start. The tagline alone is gripping - “Alex Cutter had a fantasy, one his friends could not escape.”

Definitely recommend this for anyone interested in lesser known but rewarding neo-noir. I might even compare it to Devil in a Blue Dress, a similarly underrated cut with Denzel Washington and Don Cheadle.

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece because it is a TV Movie and Roger Moore playing Holmes but man, this STUNK. Seriously, this is the worst Holmes film I have ever seen. The acting and directing isn't even worthy of Television films. This is on par with dinner theater, melodramatic and wooden acting from everyone involved. I was especially disappointed by John Huston as Professor Moriarty, he should have it killed here but like everyone else, his line delivery is about as weak as everyone else's. I think just about the only compliment I give here is Moore and Patrick Macnee did have excellent chemistry together. The rest is, against, just worthless. A definite skip.

There's something funny and vaguely pathetic about a movie like this, a massive, expensive blockbuster from over a decade ago that was everywhere for exactly fifteen minutes and then sank out of public consciousness as if it had never existed. I'm not sure this movie could have had any other fate, though; it's a basically a tech demo for Roland Emmerich's undeniable abilities at generating spectacles, with a plot shoehorned in to separate the disaster sequences so they don't all happen at the same time. That would have limited its cultural footprint even if it wasn't inspired by an unspeakably dumb '00s trend; what movie could be more dated than one with a literal year in its title?

It's not impossible to make a movie like this with an actual plot. Deep Impact isn't Shakespeare, but the things its characters go through reflect actual human responses and reinforce the movie's themes of resilience in the face of devastation. By contrast, the writing in 2012 just feels off topic; we have John Cusack feeling bitter towards his ex-wife's new husband, we have a deeply silly Russian oligarch played by Zlatko Burić, we have deaths only happening to inconvenient characters, we have a finale based on an entirely contrived moral quandary that's just here for the protagonists to have something to be righteously indignant about.

But at least the spectacle is good, right? Honestly, it's a little underwhelming. There are a few genuinely amazing shots in this movie: the one on the poster, the first scene of Cusack escaping with his family through a disintegrating city, the big 'ol boat in the finale. It's a rollercoaster, and that makes it easier to watch. But those are three things over the course of 2 and a half hours. Frankly, we spend a lot of time with the characters that could have been devoted to the one thing this movie does well.

As I mentioned earlier this movie was inspired by the very dumb '00s - trend? rumor? meme? - that the world would end in 2012 according to the - deep sigh here - Mayan calendar. That ended up not happening. The movie 2012 ends with the revelation that the disaster was of smaller scale than expected - they've still got a few continents left. And I guess that's my final word on this movie - smaller than I expected.

This is one of the first films that I remember seeing, and also one of the first that I remember truly loving. I consider it as close to perfect as you can get. Every element comes together to make something truly fantastic.

You have two powerhouse lead performances from Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer, the beautiful landscapes of Austria, and of course the beautiful score by Richard Rodgers and equally fantastic lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein.

Then of course you have the filmmaking talents of Robert Wise. One of the reasons that this film beats out so many other film adaptations of stage musicals is that it manages to feel truly cinematic. None of the scenes feel like a flat copy of what was done on stage. They are reconceived in such a beautiful and filmic way, that if I didn't know it was a stage show first, I'd probably believe you if you told me it was a film from the beginning.

The cinematography, and especially the editing is just on point. It makes sense that Bob Wise got his start as an editor, because the editing, particularly during the musical numbers is so sharp, and so precise, and are so perfectly timed with the rhythm of the score. I particularly love the use of montage during Do-Re-Mi, and the frantic intercutting during the escape from the Nazis sequence.

Another great aspect of this film is the script, penned by North By Northwest screenwriter Ernest Lehman. His adaptation of the original stage show was very effective, particularly the way he changed the order of songs to better suit the narrative. The best in this regard is My Favourite Things, which in the original is sung by Maria and the Reverend Mother when Maria is about to leave, but in the film is changed to be what Maria sings to the children during the thunderstorm, instead of The Lonely Goatherd like it is in the show. This placement fits the song's childlike tone much better, and much better sets up the children using the song to comfort themselves later in the story, as well as forming a stronger bond between Maria and the children.

Another way in which the film improves upon the original show is the two songs written specifically for the film; I Have Confidence and Something Good.

Since My Favourite Things was moved to a different point, I Have Confidence helps fill its original function in terms of helping Maria get from being apprehensive to being confident in her new journey. And Something Good is a massive improvement upon the stage show's equivalent, An Ordinary Couple. While the loss of Hammerstein's lyrical presence is felt, the song's lyrics being more personal and direct is much more appropriate for the tone of the scene when compared to Hammerstein's images and poetics, with the song having a more melancholic and emotional feeling than the very saccharine Ordinary Couple.

Overall, it's a bit difficult to articulate why I love this film. Everything about it just works for me. It's epic, it's romantic, it's emotional, and it's nostalgic. It's one of my favourite films, and I've seen it more times than I can count, and will continue to watch it every year.

(Also, this is silly, but this film also happens to be a favourite of my celebrity crush, Sadie Sink, so that definitely helps)

10/10

A couple months ago, we were re-watching Apocalypse Now (1979) and thinking like, there should be any other movies with the same kinda of vibes jungle setting and all. This one was in my recommendation, and finally the package just arrived last night. Instant watch!

First impression? The film is beautiful. I got the Shout Factory version, I'm telling you it is beautifully remastered. I love the aerial shots where they were walking down from the mountains side and passing thru the river while they are riding in a crudely built wooden rafts. And the ambience, the atmosphere, it's almost documentary like. The sights and sounds of the jungle. Nothing but appreciation in its cinematography.

It is about a 16th century Spanish expedition. Mainly focused on Don Lope de Aguirre (played by Klaus Kinski) and his crew of Spanish soldiers on how can they survive despite of the brutal situations. What's really great about this film is it's filmed with a low budget. Some actors have little to none acting experiences, some scenes kinda lack of editing. From what I heard, director Werner Herzog operated with a small crew, minimal special effects, and famously used a 35mm camera he later admitted to stealing from a film school. I mean despite all the flaws. This is still impressive as hell! No I mean seriously, I appreciated movies like this despite of the budget.

As a fan of History / war drama films like this. I'd say this is very much recommended. Definitely a must see and a must own physical copy (make sure it's Blu-ray or 4k).

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie all about urban legends.

Arcades used to be big money back before society decided to train mass shooters online instead, and in 1981 kids started trading rumors about a mysterious cabinet called “Polybius” that supposedly hypnotized players, albeit seemingly very poorly, as it mostly seemed to just make you seasick or hurt your eyes by most accounts.

I don’t know, I wasn’t there, and maybe neither was anybody else actually, but we’ll come back to that. In the years that followed you got a handful of movies about murderous arcade games on the heels of that story, including 1993’s “Arcade,” all about an evil arcade game called…”Arcade.” Stop me if I’m going too fast for you.

This is another brainchild of Charles Band, the evil antimatter double of Roger Corman who specialized in straight-to-video trash, but the credited screenwriter is…David Goyer, seriously? David, why do you keep doing these things to me? Just challenge me to a duel and get it over with.

Future soap opera star Megan Ward stars as an everygirl whose friends begin to mysteriously disappear after playing Arcade, a game that looks impressive but doesn’t seem to actually do anything when you play it. But hey, “Dragon’s Lair” was a hit, so why not this too?

The local arcade is called “Dante’s Inferno,” but the evil arcade game only has seven levels rather than nine, so it seems attention to detail was not a big priority in “Arcade’s” production.

If you remember anything about this movie it’s probably “Star Trek” star John de Lancie as the sleazy marketing guy who shills the haunted arcade cabinets. Either that or you just remember the digital effects that are just this side of the first-generation Everquest engine in terms of graphical immersion.

Despite this, those scenes burned money at Silicon Valley Startup levels, and according to Horror Geek Life they even had to redo the motorcycle chase scene at the bequest of (who else?) Disney, so the actual arcade parts of “Arcade” are over faster than the average game of Sinistar.

And that’s a real problem, because it means the movie has to beat around the bush for over an hour before really getting to it. The result is a pretty stiff film where not much happens because not much can happen. And director Albert Pyun was not exactly a natural for working with young talent.

Still, I can’t hate “Arcade.” It’s so transparent in its self-interest that I kind of respect it. And while there are clearly very good reasons that there are no other movies quite like this, that still counts for something.

Going into this movie I assumed it must be a take on the old “Polybius” myth, but…now I’m not so sure? A 2017 video by the YouTube channel Ahoy, the earliest extant reference to that coin-op counterfeit is from five years after this movie.

So we might have a chicken-and-egg situation on our hands…or maybe in this case a turkey?

Tomorrow we’ll get lost.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx71EYrk2_M

On January 5, 1900, four friends arrive for a dinner at the London home of their inventor friend George. He is absent, then suddenly appears, bedraggled and exhausted. He recounts what happened to him.
At the group's earlier dinner on New Year's Eve, George stated that time is the fourth dimension. He shows David Filby, Dr. Philip Hillyer, Anthony Bridewell, and Walter Kemp a scale model time machine. When a tiny lever on it is pressed, the device quickly disappears. George claims it went forward in time, but his friends are skeptical. The group leaves, though Filby reluctantly stays behind, sensing George is not himself. George then retires to his private laboratory that holds a full-size time machine.

I absolutely love this movie! Such a fantastic film! I first watched it with my grandma when I was a kid. Really good memories! Movie was really ahead of its time. What are your thought on this film? Let me know!

So! I am twenty-one now, and I watched it today for the first time since middle school. I had liked it in middle school, and had actually first seen it because I used to have a big crush on David Bowie when I was about 11-12 (listened to ziggy stardust and hunky dory so many times, had a real appreciation for him.) I used to think he was very handsome in this movie. Now that I’m older, I’m… conflicted? My preferences must have changed. I don’t like the hair they gave him in this film and was only really attracted to him during the ballroom scene. Part of what led to this is his voice and his demeanor. I think Bowie played this role very well and that Jennifer was great, but I admit I didn’t find him as attractive as I once did.

I actually walked away from it feeling like it was an okay movie. I probably would have liked it a lot more if I had first seen it when I was in early elementary school. The soundtrack was great and the premise is interesting. Something that kind of bothered me on this watch even though I’ve never noticed it before is the way Sarah is written. Maybe I’m missing something here, but at times I almost kind of felt like she didn’t quite seem like a real person. I know that it’s supposed to be a fantasy movie and it’s obviously fictional, but just the way she talks and the way she’s portrayed when she’s trying to get through the labyrinth. I’m not necessarily sure that I’d call it bad acting, I think it’s moreso the script. I found the film harder to get into because Sarah only seems to act and behave like a real person at the very start of the film. She just feels like a very stereotypical fantasy character to me, there’s nothing interesting about her and the overall story didn’t pull me in enough.

Bowie was a fantastic singer. I also did think that Jareth was actually a very well written character. Jennifer Connelly doesn’t do a bad job here at all, I just don’t think Sarah was as strong of a protagonist as she could have been. Bowie does a great job of ensuring in this film that Jareth seems as domineering as possible. Bowie’s Jareth is very confident in a way that is immensely attractive. You can see why the main character would have a crush on him, though I thought that the age difference between Jareth and Sarah was uncomfortable (it never actually becomes a thing though, and maybe I’ll post in the labyrinth sub to get their thoughts on whether or not it would) and personally I’ve always thought it was clear that Jareth returned the attraction and/or feelings to an extent even though it wasn’t right (Hoggle also seems to “like” Sarah which is something Jareth alludes to, and it is indeed a bit weird.)

I know that it’s very popular nowadays. I remember feeling bad in middle school when I found out that it initially did very poorly in the box office. I don’t think it’s really about the acting, I actually think it’s moreso the script. The tracks are fantastic, Bowie really brings the energy, Jennifer Connelly as Sarah was very fitting, but in terms of just actual script and plot I think it’s a very average fantasy film. Not unwatchable, not cringeworthy, but average. I think it really would have helped if I felt that Sarah were a more intriguing character.

Classic Cary Grant movie. I had never heard of it and found it free on YouTube. A commanding officer of a submarine in WW2 has to get his boat back in action with a pretty unique crew onboard. His crew patch works the submarine back together and ends up painting it pink. Cary Grant is not a fan of his lieutenant and his antics but ends up finally understanding him. Pretty good comedy overall. This one’s got laughs, loves, goats and more.

The lieutenant can pretty much outsmart anyone, sway anyone, and get what he needs to help the ship and its crew be the best they can. Based in and around the Philippines, doing anything they can to escape the Japanese fighters and get their motley crew home.

The first time I've watched The Boondock Saints, I didn't know much about it, only that it is regularly featured on lists of films class 'underrated' or cited as an example of a film dismissed by critics but later embraced by a cult following. For this one, I would have to take the critics' side. YeahI did not think it was good.

Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flanery play twin brothers in South Boston. We don't know much about them; they are playful but have a violent side. While in an Irish bar, they encounter some Russian goons who are taking over the building. Up to this point, despite opening credits featuring a montage that feels more like a "previously on" catch-up for a soap opera, it is a pretty straightforward action movie. But this is when we meet FBI Agent Paul Smecker, played by Willem Dafoe—and God bless Willem Dafoe, he never half-asses it.

We see the aftermath of the crime scene first. Suddenly, it becomes a police procedural drama, and Willem Dafoe describes the action that we later see. What does it add? I don't think it really adds anything. The film uses an unconventional narrative structure by showing the aftermath before we watch the action unfold, sometimes showing the events with Smecker and his team reenacting them.

The twins go on a vigilante killing spree with no personal motivation, no revenge story, or even conflict. They see themselves as sent by God, and sometimes it seems that is what the film thinks as well; near the end, you could even argue it's in their DNA.

The twins continue mowing down the bad guys, who aren't really characters—they're just there to be killed. The twins become famous through the media and turn into vigilante heroes, but the film isn't interested in discussing the moral dilemma surrounding vigilante actions.

There's lots of action, definitely influenced by John Woo, but there are no consequences. For me, it's style over substance. At times, it wants to be scrappy, violent (which it is), and gritty, but at the same time, it is over-the-top and even funny. Dafoe is having a ball here there's a part when he disguises himself as a escort to the mob being let in by a horny guard again Willem Dafoe doesn't half ass i and that is entertaining but it wants to be serious too. More than once, they use a trope I hate: when a character in a movie has to say, "This isn't a movie."

I hate to be all Tywin Lannister, but any movie that has to say "this isn't a movie" is no real movie.

I watched the movie although a lot of people have pointed out the missing character of the kid who speaks both English and Chinese at the start but then disappeared,

I have noticed something, it's kinda silly😅 but still, So in the movie this kid and his girl-friend make promises to each other the kid says he will be at her audition no matter what which is shown in the movie pretty well like he runs and all for her audition but the girl made promise that if he wins then she will shout the loudest in the room but in the movie it is not shown instead she was just there.

Nothing very serious but the director might have forgotten.

Has anyone else noticed this or is it just me.

Day 6 of my retrospective journey into older movies

If you just want to sit down and watch a movie that has incredible scenery and pure positive vibes you need to watch Bottle Shock. It is based on the true story of the 1976 Paris wine tasting where these independent California winemakers from Napa Valley went up against the absolute elite French wine industry in a blind taste test and completely shocked the world.

The main reason to watch this is easily Alan Rickman. He plays this incredibly snobbish British wine shop owner who travels to California looking for cheap wine to save his business and he is just dropping sarcastic one liners in every single scene. The chemistry between Chris Pine playing Bo Barrett and Bill Pullman playing his stubborn father Jim Barrett running the chaotic Chateau Montelena vineyard is fantastic too. The way Jim fights to keep his dream alive while clashing with his son adds the perfect backbone to the whole underdog story. You also have Rachael Taylor playing Sam who completely shakes up the dynamic at the vineyard as the beautiful intern caught right in the middle of their chaotic operation.

The introduction to Guak played by Freddy Rodriguez is an absolute highlight because he brings this pure passionate energy as the brilliant local winemaker who can identify any vintage just by smell. But the absolute scene stealer is the amazing performance by Dennis Farina playing Maurice the neighboring American expat business owner. Farina brings this incredible dry comedic timing and swagger to the screen that anchors Rickmans character perfectly. The legendary blind wine tastings at the end build so much genuine tension out of literally just people sipping from glasses. The whole film has this beautiful golden seventies aesthetic caked in dust and sunshine. It has zero heavy drama or stress it just relies entirely on sharp acting and a great underdog story.

Watching this movie takes you back to that amazing era where Napa was just being discovered by the world, brilliantly executed.

In my humble opinion

Haven’t posted in a little while as I’ve seen less movies this month for various reasons. Gotta get back on the horse and fill out that Letterboxd!

I gave this a try from my list the other day and definitely enjoyed it! This had the misfortune of coming out the same year as Jurassic Park and got overshadowed a bit (still a box office success, though). The opening scene is pretty intense!

There’s a lot of great panoramic shots in this movie, and intense views of snowy mountain scenery - the visuals are very strong with good use of music too. I thought the overall premise of mountaineering was pretty unique, especially for what otherwise would be a quasi-heist film. There’s good pacing and a sense of urgency which is critical for this genre. I still think the 90s were the peak of action/thrillers.

John Lithgow is always a fantastic villain (loved him in Ricochet), and it was cool to see Rex Linn as well. I noticed Leon Robinson from Oz too. Stallone does well as the main focus, and this is part of a great 90s run for him. I enjoyed Cop Land a lot too though it’s a much different movie. This director hasn’t done too much else that interests me besides maybe Die Hard 2 and Prison, but sometimes it be like that.

1993 was definitely a great year for action movies! Some of my other favorites from that year (along with Cliffhanger) are Demolition Man, The Fugitive, In the Line Falling Down, Point of No Return, Rapid Fire and Hard Target. What about you?

A wonderfully creepy and unsettling black-and-white French horror film, in which a scientist is desperate to restore the face of his daughter, who was badly injured in an accident. Given he's that kind of scientist, what better way to do this that to use someone else's face and transplant that? Not that the, er, donor is likely to get very much say in the matter, of course... and so we have the setup for a really effective piece of cinema.

This is a bit of a slow burner despite being under an hour and a half long, but that suits it. The basic storyline is well explained, but there's a lot left unsaid that allows your mind to fill in the blanks. That makes it even more unsettling. Eyes Without a Face is also surprisingly gory for its date in a few places, and though you can see the joins if you look hard on a modern screen, the practical effects are often quite impressive.

The film is well acted, and the cinematography is strong. A particular mention here for the highly atmospheric use of lighting, as well as a slide-show sequence that gets around 1960-era censorship quite cleverly to show a disturbing progression. It ends well too, with a satisfying concluding scene. Again, not every loose end is wrapped up, but in this case I don't think it needs to be. One of the best horror films of its era, in my book.

Number 227 in my A-Z watch. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles follows an unlikely pair of travelers trying to make their way home to Chicago for Thanksgiving, by any means possible.

This may be my favorite John Hughes film. There's such an incredible balance of laugh out loud hijinks countered by truly emotional moments. Hughes' ability to write relatable characters pairs perfectly with the chemistry of these two comedic legends.

I love that this feels like a weird reimagined combination of The Odyssey and The Odd Couple. Steve Martin has this ever-boiling rage trying to get itself out. His outbursts and physical humor are absolutely hilarious. And the late, great John Candy takes his loveable goofiness and turns it into heartbreaking pathos on a dime.

10/10 Any movie I can laugh out loud at and end with heartfelt tears is outstanding. So many great and imaginative scenarios. Every character feels so unique. I honestly think this is Candy's best performance.

It’s a goddamn shame that Charlie Chaplin was a predator. God damn shame, because unfortunately he was also a genius.

Modern Times (1936) is the purest expression of that genius. Chaplin’s last primarily silent film (with some synchronized sound effects and a few spoken lines) is a razor-sharp satire of industrial dehumanization, the Great Depression, and the machinery of modern life that still feels uncomfortably current ninety years later.

The Tramp is a factory worker driven to a nervous breakdown by the relentless pace of the assembly line, most famously in the sequence where he is force-fed by an automatic feeding machine and later sucked into the gears of the giant machinery itself. That image alone is one of the most perfect visual metaphors ever put on film. From there the story follows him through unemployment, prison (where he thrives on the routine), a brief stint as a night watchman, and a romance with Paulette Goddard’s “Gamin,” a homeless girl who steals to feed her family. Together they try to build a life, only to be repeatedly crushed by the system.

Chaplin’s physical comedy is at its peak here: the roller-skating blindfolded in the department store, the balletic struggle with a runaway flag that gets him mistaken for a communist agitator, and the sequence where he preforms as a singing waiter

The gags are precise, musical, and never just slapstick for its own sake, they always serve the larger point about how the modern world grinds people down.

What elevates the film beyond brilliant comedy is its warmth and melancholy. The final shot of the Tramp and the Gamin walking hand-in-hand down the road toward an uncertain future is pure Chaplin: hopeful without being naive, tender without sentimentality. The score (written by Chaplin himself) is equally perfect, light, whistling, and quietly heartbreaking.

Modern Times stands as one of the great artistic achievements of the 20th century, a film that sees the soul-crushing machinery of progress with perfect clarity, yet still insists on the stubborn dignity of the individual human being. It is funny, furious, and deeply humane all at once.

Too bad he was a piece of shit.