I was also gonna head LFF to see it but life had other plans. It'll be out on VOD in a month or so though, just VPN/proxy and buy it on American iTunes. Cheaper than a train ticket into London for me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Movies Youve Seen Recently |OT| October 2017
- Thread starter Messofanego
- Start date
I was also gonna head LFF to see it but life had other plans. It'll be out on VOD in a month or so though, just VPN/proxy and buy it on American iTunes. Cheaper than a train ticket into London for me.
Topsy-Turvy (1999): A period piece about the musical collaboration of Gilbert and Sullivan must have been quite a shift in subject matter for fans of Mike Leigh at the time of release; even now, he's only done one other film with this sort of setting (the J.M. Turner biopic Mr. Turner). As you'd expect from Leigh, there's a strong focus on details here, and a lot of effort is put into fleshing out minor members of the theatre's production company. The musical sequences are all engagingly staged. As you'd expect from a Leigh film, it's more about the small moments than any huge narrative (indeed, when it seems like there's going to be a lot of drama around Sullivan's desire to become a more serious artist, this is kind of patched up between scenes).
Spielberg (2017): Sweeping in its attempt to cover basically Spielberg's entire filmography (though it kind of leaps over his disappointing films in the late 80s/early 90s), it's fun and provides some interesting anecdotes. By far the most interesting biographical note that I wasn't familiar with was the details of Spielberg's parents' divorce (it turns out, mom ran off with dad's best friend, but dad pretended to be the villain for the kids' sake, which Spielberg didn't know about until years later). And boy, what a murderer's row of interviewees.
Spielberg (2017): Sweeping in its attempt to cover basically Spielberg's entire filmography (though it kind of leaps over his disappointing films in the late 80s/early 90s), it's fun and provides some interesting anecdotes. By far the most interesting biographical note that I wasn't familiar with was the details of Spielberg's parents' divorce (it turns out, mom ran off with dad's best friend, but dad pretended to be the villain for the kids' sake, which Spielberg didn't know about until years later). And boy, what a murderer's row of interviewees.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Ridley Scott fucking sucks
AngmarsKing701
Member
Messofanego
Banned
Oh, might try that. Thanks.
Fast Forward
Member
I would not go THAT far, but after seeing it twice for the first time this week (wanted to see it at least once before 2049 FTR), it feels like I should have seen it long ago, and yet, it now feels live I have seen forever ago. Weird feeling. Really weird.
Like, I've been aware of the movie forever, but to me, it's now the ultimate example of why there is a HUGE difference between being aware of a movie, and having watched it.
Edit: FTR, I mean to say I had not seen any version of the original 1982 film before this week. Both times, it was the final cut. FTR, I have seen a montage of the narration on the theatrical cut since then, and wow... glad I started with the Final Cut. Narration is comically bad.
Cripplegate
Member
I suppose I should watch some spoopy movies for October, but first...
Chasing the Dragon (5/10) - Haphazard and dramatically inert. Exactly the kind of slapdash crime epic I would expect from both Wong Jing and modern mainland cinema. It's not without its pleasures, of course: Donnie Yen and Andy Lau are both compelling in their respective roles of Cripple Ho and Lee Rock, and the film squeezes an absurd amount of mileage out of its impressive Kowloon sets. I spent the entire running time imagining a better, more focused film, that would be set entirely within the Walled City and focus on Cripple Ho's rise to power there. Instead, the film jumps erratically through time periods, locations and even character perspectives. Major dramatic beats are baffling because they often involve Cripple Ho's immediate family, characters who are never introduced beforehand or developed at all, and only show up as the script demands. It's a two hour movie in search of any kind of structure, and it never finds anything satisfying. It does, however, find a way to do that typical "jump into the modern day" ending that all mainland period films seem to do, despite the obvious constraints of historical fact (it jumps to 1991 instead, but the scene serves the same function, providing needless and undoubtedly censorship necessitated context, assuring the audience that Cripple Ho sinned and is dead now). Also features some of the most baffling and risible creative choices I've seen lately, mostly involving the character arc of one of the film's only female characters, made all the more embarrassing given how her arc is defined entirely by her relationship to the male stars. Misguided doesn't even begin to describe it, and my theatre was howling with derisive laughter during these scenes. In retrospect, I feel I should probably be rating this even lower, but I'll leave it at a 5 for now. This could have been a good movie. I can see the appeal of the project, the compelling nature of this story and time period. There's a lot of potential. Chasing the Dragon sadly manages to squander most of it.
Chasing the Dragon (5/10) - Haphazard and dramatically inert. Exactly the kind of slapdash crime epic I would expect from both Wong Jing and modern mainland cinema. It's not without its pleasures, of course: Donnie Yen and Andy Lau are both compelling in their respective roles of Cripple Ho and Lee Rock, and the film squeezes an absurd amount of mileage out of its impressive Kowloon sets. I spent the entire running time imagining a better, more focused film, that would be set entirely within the Walled City and focus on Cripple Ho's rise to power there. Instead, the film jumps erratically through time periods, locations and even character perspectives. Major dramatic beats are baffling because they often involve Cripple Ho's immediate family, characters who are never introduced beforehand or developed at all, and only show up as the script demands. It's a two hour movie in search of any kind of structure, and it never finds anything satisfying. It does, however, find a way to do that typical "jump into the modern day" ending that all mainland period films seem to do, despite the obvious constraints of historical fact (it jumps to 1991 instead, but the scene serves the same function, providing needless and undoubtedly censorship necessitated context, assuring the audience that Cripple Ho sinned and is dead now). Also features some of the most baffling and risible creative choices I've seen lately, mostly involving the character arc of one of the film's only female characters, made all the more embarrassing given how her arc is defined entirely by her relationship to the male stars. Misguided doesn't even begin to describe it, and my theatre was howling with derisive laughter during these scenes. In retrospect, I feel I should probably be rating this even lower, but I'll leave it at a 5 for now. This could have been a good movie. I can see the appeal of the project, the compelling nature of this story and time period. There's a lot of potential. Chasing the Dragon sadly manages to squander most of it.
Considering that a number of his films have absentee or irresponsible dad's, I wonder when exactly did he find the truth out?
I still need to watch the doc, but it wouldn't shock me if it happened during the 90's at some point.
Fancy Clown
Member
Probs before Catch Me if You Can at least since Leos mom sleeps with his dads friends in it.
A Dangerous Method: 8/10 rewatch. Just one of the most sensuous films ever made. It's a split-focus leather-bound world, infused with tobacco smoke and sprinkled with beard hair in which Kiera Knightly is repeatedly spanked.
Blade Runner 2049: 7/10. Pretty good, ultimately not as good as the first which is too bad since it's not like that's an unreachable standard. A little too long and a lot of the action was unnecessary and dull. I was so disengaged with those scenes I kept thinking "I know how this ends, get on with it." Again though as in the first, an overwhelming atmosphere of gloom, by far the film's greatest strength, especially with dat Deakins. I thought for sure Harrison Ford was going to shit this up like so many of his recent reprises but he gives an astonishingly great performance, brief as it is. An ok detective story, which is at least better than the first film which had literally nothing. Might have more to say in the spoiler thread, looks like there's plenty to discuss.
Blade Runner 2049: 7/10. Pretty good, ultimately not as good as the first which is too bad since it's not like that's an unreachable standard. A little too long and a lot of the action was unnecessary and dull. I was so disengaged with those scenes I kept thinking "I know how this ends, get on with it." Again though as in the first, an overwhelming atmosphere of gloom, by far the film's greatest strength, especially with dat Deakins. I thought for sure Harrison Ford was going to shit this up like so many of his recent reprises but he gives an astonishingly great performance, brief as it is. An ok detective story, which is at least better than the first film which had literally nothing. Might have more to say in the spoiler thread, looks like there's plenty to discuss.
The Dark Tower
Must say the first 85 min where pretty oke. Sure the character building could have been way more in depth. I mean some info on the Man in Black would have been nice but expected way worse after all reviews.
But the last 5 min really sucked and it ended way to abrupt. Like they were. Shit budget is gone guys. Wrap it up.
6.8/10 Would have been a 7.5 with a better ending.
Must say the first 85 min where pretty oke. Sure the character building could have been way more in depth. I mean some info on the Man in Black would have been nice but expected way worse after all reviews.
But the last 5 min really sucked and it ended way to abrupt. Like they were. Shit budget is gone guys. Wrap it up.
6.8/10 Would have been a 7.5 with a better ending.
Roberto Duran
Member
Blade Runner - One of my favorite movies of all time. 5/5
Blade Runner 2049 - Saw this in IMAX and Cinemarks XD. IMAX was definitely much louder and I prefer the IMAX picture. XD had better seats. Anyway, fantastic movie and my movie of the year so far. 5/5
Blade Runner 2049 - Saw this in IMAX and Cinemarks XD. IMAX was definitely much louder and I prefer the IMAX picture. XD had better seats. Anyway, fantastic movie and my movie of the year so far. 5/5
MidnightCowboy
Member
Who is on your Mt. Rushmore of directors?
mariachi507
Member
Couldn't resist.
Nikodemos
Member
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Everything the critics said is true. 70% of the film is great, the kiss is shoehorned-in pandering, and the final 30% (including the actual ending) is a rather incoherently pieced-together jumble.
7/10, same as the actual amount of film that is watchable without going "oh, come on".
Everything the critics said is true. 70% of the film is great, the kiss is shoehorned-in pandering, and the final 30% (including the actual ending) is a rather incoherently pieced-together jumble.
7/10, same as the actual amount of film that is watchable without going "oh, come on".
My Little Pony: The Movie
I had a free pass to this movie. I was ultra bored. Don't ask.
The kids in the theatre (the few that were in there, since it was mighty empty) seemed to have a good time. Giggles aplenty in there. Songs delighted them. So if you've got children, I think they will have a great time.
Me, it was not much fun. The evil unicorn had a Kylo Ren-esque horn that was unstable, that was kind of neat. The animation came off a little cheap at points, though at others it was rather pretty. The songs were annoyingly catchy, so they do their job. But this is my first time seeing anything My Little Pony-related, outside of pictures and toys and the like, so I have nothing to base anything on and was left somewhat confused. It's fine for kids, and it's not awful. Also, this movie has some darkness in it, which was a bit of a surprise.
It also has this line in it, which actually made me laugh: "Who puts eyeballs in filling?"
I had a free pass to this movie. I was ultra bored. Don't ask.
The kids in the theatre (the few that were in there, since it was mighty empty) seemed to have a good time. Giggles aplenty in there. Songs delighted them. So if you've got children, I think they will have a great time.
Me, it was not much fun. The evil unicorn had a Kylo Ren-esque horn that was unstable, that was kind of neat. The animation came off a little cheap at points, though at others it was rather pretty. The songs were annoyingly catchy, so they do their job. But this is my first time seeing anything My Little Pony-related, outside of pictures and toys and the like, so I have nothing to base anything on and was left somewhat confused. It's fine for kids, and it's not awful. Also, this movie has some darkness in it, which was a bit of a surprise.
It also has this line in it, which actually made me laugh: "Who puts eyeballs in filling?"
Boy Wander
Member
Commando - 1985
I was in the mood for some action and saw that I had this on my DVR. To be honest, it's one of the weakest movies of Arnie's 80s prime. It's basically a video game in movie form, with a high body count, lots of cheesy one-liners and some ridiculously silly scenes. For some reason until today I'd never realised that Alyssa Milano plays Arnie's daughter. Anyway, it's still fun but not on the level of a Terminator or Predator.
7/10
I was in the mood for some action and saw that I had this on my DVR. To be honest, it's one of the weakest movies of Arnie's 80s prime. It's basically a video game in movie form, with a high body count, lots of cheesy one-liners and some ridiculously silly scenes. For some reason until today I'd never realised that Alyssa Milano plays Arnie's daughter. Anyway, it's still fun but not on the level of a Terminator or Predator.
7/10
Messofanego
Banned
That means not active and more classic, I'm guessing.
Andrei Tarkovsky
Ingmar Bergman
Andrzej Zulawski tied with Alejandro Jodorowsky
Satyajit Ray
Still new to Kurosawa, Luis Bunuel, Ozu, only seen a couple of films from each so can't put them on.
Not doing 31 Days but I have only watched a bunch of trashy horror this month:
Don't Breathe *** Self-satisfied and boneheaded with its moral calculus, otherwise well-crafted and Levy is good.
The Purge *1/2 Even more self-satisfied and boneheaded with its moral calculus, otherwise badly made and the acting is across the board terrible. Hawke phones in his worst performance.
Morgan ** Why is it that in bad movies scientists involved in AI/eugenics experiments appear to have never thought about the implications of AI/eugenics? I think about that shit all the time and it's not even a part of my life. Pluses for Giamatti's scene, JJL's scenes, and Kate Mara's haircut. Oh, and for at least shifting the setting to a creaky old house in the wilderness from the pedestrian clean white laboratory. Beyond that this is shaky acting from a bunch of decent performers in service of half-formed ideas directed and edited together with zero poise. At least the Scott family patriarch thinks over his obsessions in depth before mangling them.
Ouija: Origin of Evil *** Flanagan with yet another solid midbudget haunt. Not remarkable on paper but Flanagan knows that simply mining emotional resonance by taking the grief and anxieties of his characters seriously sets him apart.
My Bloody Valentine (1981) I was nodding off and missed maybe a third altogether. Canadian knuckleheads (undifferentiated except for the brooding one) drink a bunch in dives, and then one time they drink in a mine, and that time a pickaxe dude kills a bunch of them, and then there's a twist. The best parts were these dopes tying one on and harassing women and eating garbage food, should've just rewatched Strange Brew.
Ah no you're right, that totally matches up with the Ozu I've seen (which is very little, still a major blindspot).
Don't Breathe *** Self-satisfied and boneheaded with its moral calculus, otherwise well-crafted and Levy is good.
The Purge *1/2 Even more self-satisfied and boneheaded with its moral calculus, otherwise badly made and the acting is across the board terrible. Hawke phones in his worst performance.
Morgan ** Why is it that in bad movies scientists involved in AI/eugenics experiments appear to have never thought about the implications of AI/eugenics? I think about that shit all the time and it's not even a part of my life. Pluses for Giamatti's scene, JJL's scenes, and Kate Mara's haircut. Oh, and for at least shifting the setting to a creaky old house in the wilderness from the pedestrian clean white laboratory. Beyond that this is shaky acting from a bunch of decent performers in service of half-formed ideas directed and edited together with zero poise. At least the Scott family patriarch thinks over his obsessions in depth before mangling them.
Ouija: Origin of Evil *** Flanagan with yet another solid midbudget haunt. Not remarkable on paper but Flanagan knows that simply mining emotional resonance by taking the grief and anxieties of his characters seriously sets him apart.
My Bloody Valentine (1981) I was nodding off and missed maybe a third altogether. Canadian knuckleheads (undifferentiated except for the brooding one) drink a bunch in dives, and then one time they drink in a mine, and that time a pickaxe dude kills a bunch of them, and then there's a twist. The best parts were these dopes tying one on and harassing women and eating garbage food, should've just rewatched Strange Brew.
Ah no you're right, that totally matches up with the Ozu I've seen (which is very little, still a major blindspot).
Aww, we're missing you over in the other thread.
Blade Runner 2049
Not really sure what to make of it to be honest. Pretty confusing at times, orgasmic visuals, a soundtrack that adds a nice atmosphere but is nowhere near as memorable as the original's soundtrack, and some truly astounding scenes. Solid performances, although Jared Leto's character was overkill.
This film definitely demands repeat viewings. Hopefully after seeing it again I'll have a clearer stance of where I stand with this film, because I'm not completely sure if I liked it.
It's a film worth watching, if only because it is a technical marvel and a competent sequel to one of the best sci-fi films of all time. I'm just not in the "one of the best films of 2017" camp yet.
Not really sure what to make of it to be honest. Pretty confusing at times, orgasmic visuals, a soundtrack that adds a nice atmosphere but is nowhere near as memorable as the original's soundtrack, and some truly astounding scenes. Solid performances, although Jared Leto's character was overkill.
This film definitely demands repeat viewings. Hopefully after seeing it again I'll have a clearer stance of where I stand with this film, because I'm not completely sure if I liked it.
It's a film worth watching, if only because it is a technical marvel and a competent sequel to one of the best sci-fi films of all time. I'm just not in the "one of the best films of 2017" camp yet.
More_Badass
Member
I had high expectations going into Blade Runner 2049. Not just because of the reviews, or because Denis Villeneuve made some of my favorite movies of the last few years, but because the original Blade Runner had finally clicked with me after years of not quite liking it. So, with the original and my newfound appreciation of it fresh in mind, 2049 had a lot to live up to.
Somehow, someway, Blade Runner 2049 pulls it off. Somehow, in 2017, we have gotten a film that simultaneously expands upon the original's themes and atmosphere while not being beholden to it, acts as its own movie without being scared to explore different and intriguing angles, and moves at the kind of measured purposeful pace needed to let its themes sink in while not feeling boring or bloated.
Blade Runner's biggest strength was its world, that damp claustrophobic urban decay, a bleak future that felt so real and tangible thanks to its sense of place and technology. In one of its most impressive feats, the world of 2049 authentically feels like that same world, after 30 years of technological advancements and time passed and things changed mostly for worse.
Where the world of the first movie was confined and drenched in shadow but bustling and lively, the world of 2049 is sprawling and open but drained. A dying husk of a world clinging to life as it withers away. Wide vistas of dead landscapes, battered on all sides by encroaching signs of doom. Those dense urban cityscapes are still there, and those towering buildings, but they no longer feel so distant from the crushing doom that so many have escaped for off-world life. The crashing rising seas to the west, the radioactive wastes to the east, the endless snow from above.
And this time around, the narrative is as compelling as the visuals and world. Gosling's K has a fascinating arc that explores those classic central themes and concepts of what is human and the nature of humanity and that of replicants, perhaps less poetically and memorable than Hauer's performance, but through engrossing new angles that stick in your head well after the credits. Ford's return as Deckard is one of his strongest performances in years, and his inclusion never feels like pandering to nostalgia or some cheap callback. If anything, the weakest link of the film may have been Leto's Wallace; while interesting and fitting well within the story, his role does feel kind of lacking as an antagonist.
Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is a triumph. That it's as good as it is, is shocking. That it's a worthy follow-up to a cinematic sci-fi classic, that matches and in some ways surpasses the original, is almost unbelievable. But Villeneuve did it. Cyberpunk and science fiction fans can rejoice.
Somehow, someway, Blade Runner 2049 pulls it off. Somehow, in 2017, we have gotten a film that simultaneously expands upon the original's themes and atmosphere while not being beholden to it, acts as its own movie without being scared to explore different and intriguing angles, and moves at the kind of measured purposeful pace needed to let its themes sink in while not feeling boring or bloated.
Blade Runner's biggest strength was its world, that damp claustrophobic urban decay, a bleak future that felt so real and tangible thanks to its sense of place and technology. In one of its most impressive feats, the world of 2049 authentically feels like that same world, after 30 years of technological advancements and time passed and things changed mostly for worse.
Where the world of the first movie was confined and drenched in shadow but bustling and lively, the world of 2049 is sprawling and open but drained. A dying husk of a world clinging to life as it withers away. Wide vistas of dead landscapes, battered on all sides by encroaching signs of doom. Those dense urban cityscapes are still there, and those towering buildings, but they no longer feel so distant from the crushing doom that so many have escaped for off-world life. The crashing rising seas to the west, the radioactive wastes to the east, the endless snow from above.
And this time around, the narrative is as compelling as the visuals and world. Gosling's K has a fascinating arc that explores those classic central themes and concepts of what is human and the nature of humanity and that of replicants, perhaps less poetically and memorable than Hauer's performance, but through engrossing new angles that stick in your head well after the credits. Ford's return as Deckard is one of his strongest performances in years, and his inclusion never feels like pandering to nostalgia or some cheap callback. If anything, the weakest link of the film may have been Leto's Wallace; while interesting and fitting well within the story, his role does feel kind of lacking as an antagonist.
Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is a triumph. That it's as good as it is, is shocking. That it's a worthy follow-up to a cinematic sci-fi classic, that matches and in some ways surpasses the original, is almost unbelievable. But Villeneuve did it. Cyberpunk and science fiction fans can rejoice.
KraftyKrankins
Member
Just saw Persona after having seen Seventh Seal 6-7 years ago.
.............. I give up. Bergman just isn't for me. Ugh....
.............. I give up. Bergman just isn't for me. Ugh....
Those are the only two of him you saw? That's a bad way to go about his stuff, in my opinion.
Before giving up, try watching Wild Strawberries or Summer Interlude.
Or even jump into Scenes from a Marriage (the long version).
The Seventh Seal is probably my least favorite Bergman (outside of Summer with Monika, that i've seen) and Persona while amazing, is more unintelligible and somewhat more abstract in style, than his other stuff.
Fancy Clown
Member
Just jump straight into Through a Glass Darkly and fuck yourself up
Yes he is, trust me. Based on your Letterboxd he absolutely is for you. As others have pointed out you just picked 2 of the weirdest ones to start with. Keep going with some of the suggestions here. I don't want to live in a world where you don't eventually watch and fall in love with Fanny and Alexander. I won't stand for it.
Schneider vs Bax is... well, if Stallone's Assassins, was an acid, dry and slightly surreal northern European comedy, this would probably be it.
That makes it sound better than it is though, it's funny at times, exciting at times, but over all, it lacked that strangle hold on my attention, that Borgman had, and the midway point dragged on, especially because character arcs feel somewhat confusing and overall aimless.
That makes it sound better than it is though, it's funny at times, exciting at times, but over all, it lacked that strangle hold on my attention, that Borgman had, and the midway point dragged on, especially because character arcs feel somewhat confusing and overall aimless.
Agreed Fanny and Alexander was great! Pretty accessible and just fun, long as hell, but a fun film to watch nevertheless. Which reminds me, once the October bloodfest ends I really should get back to his other films. I saw Filmstruck has Hour of the Wolf and I've been wanting to see that pretty badly.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I watched Looper to get ready for Star Wars and it was neat but I need to remind myself that except Gunbuster or Back to the Future I will never really feel satisfied by the rules of time travel in anything and that I just need to accept what the movie does. I really enjoyed that the "present" in the film was still noticeably in the future but something about the geography kind of bothered me, something about having the highly dense urban area right next to rural farms felt off. I also am not sure how I felt about the ending, but I still enjoyed it quite a bit.
Paul Thomas Anderson
Quentin Tarantino
Christopher Nolan
Stanley Kubrick
Stephen Spielberg
The Death of Stalin (2017) - 7.6/10. If you ever wanted to hear Stalin speak with a Cockney accent, this is the film for you.
Driven by Armando Iannucci's fantastically witty script and a killer ensemble cast, this is a riveting and hysterically funny political satire.
It's not In The Loop by any means, but it's an ambitious stab at real-world (ish) history all the same.
Driven by Armando Iannucci's fantastically witty script and a killer ensemble cast, this is a riveting and hysterically funny political satire.
It's not In The Loop by any means, but it's an ambitious stab at real-world (ish) history all the same.
Fucking lol.
I'm so desperate for something good, I'm still higher on 2049 than I think it deserves. Any kind of sci fi always gets a bump with me.
Fancy Clown
Member
Blazed Runner: 420: Villeneuve is finally given a script to match his directorial ambitions, and is so sterling in this regard that it outdoes its celebrated predecessor in fully exploring the existential themes of its material. I was pleasantly surprised with how far the material was willing to go with questions of freedom, morality, and the essence of humanity and does so without sacrificing any of the mood and gloom that are Blade Runners major attraction (a few slightly cumbersome action beats or bald faced exposition notwithstanding).
There are few wasted or unearned moments here, and Villeneuve takes his time with exploring both the material and every gorgeously realized environment (there are almost as many shades of Tarkovsky in here as there are Scott). Nothing here feels cheap or unearned. 2049 is an almost impossible sequel; it shouldnt exist, and it certainly shouldnt be this good. Maybe Ill cool on this after I digest it some more, but its sitting pretty so far.
P.S. someone give Deakins his Oscar already.
There are few wasted or unearned moments here, and Villeneuve takes his time with exploring both the material and every gorgeously realized environment (there are almost as many shades of Tarkovsky in here as there are Scott). Nothing here feels cheap or unearned. 2049 is an almost impossible sequel; it shouldnt exist, and it certainly shouldnt be this good. Maybe Ill cool on this after I digest it some more, but its sitting pretty so far.
P.S. someone give Deakins his Oscar already.
Messofanego
Banned
Yesssss!
Harriet Andersson fuck me up gurl
*adds to monster list of movies*
Cripplegate
Member
Let's get spoopy.
The Werewolf of Washington (5.5/10) - Dean Stockwell stars in this strange little curio about a journalist who has an affair with the President's daughter, goes to Hungary and succumbs to the curse of the werewolf, and then returns to Washington and goes on a killing rampage. The film is often disorienting, as it cuts rapidly between scenes with no establishing shots, or narrative transitions, or really any connective tissue of any kind, and some strange camera angles and editing choices render much of the opening action nearly abstract. The result is intermittently appealing, a bizarre phantasmagoria of violence and occultism and Washington politics (to the point that there is even a running gag involving people mishearing the word pentagram as Pentagon). It's mostly dull and incompetent, but also sometimes accidentally clever? The first full reveal of the werewolf, for example, is both clever and anticlimactic (I like what they were going for on paper, but the budget and of course the directing and editing choices leave a lot to be desired). Interesting now as a relic of its period (it satirizes the Nixon era, and was playing in theatres during the Watergate scandal) but not for much else. Great ending, though.
The Werewolf of Washington (5.5/10) - Dean Stockwell stars in this strange little curio about a journalist who has an affair with the President's daughter, goes to Hungary and succumbs to the curse of the werewolf, and then returns to Washington and goes on a killing rampage. The film is often disorienting, as it cuts rapidly between scenes with no establishing shots, or narrative transitions, or really any connective tissue of any kind, and some strange camera angles and editing choices render much of the opening action nearly abstract. The result is intermittently appealing, a bizarre phantasmagoria of violence and occultism and Washington politics (to the point that there is even a running gag involving people mishearing the word pentagram as Pentagon). It's mostly dull and incompetent, but also sometimes accidentally clever? The first full reveal of the werewolf, for example, is both clever and anticlimactic (I like what they were going for on paper, but the budget and of course the directing and editing choices leave a lot to be desired). Interesting now as a relic of its period (it satirizes the Nixon era, and was playing in theatres during the Watergate scandal) but not for much else. Great ending, though.
MidnightCowboy
Member
I don't know if it's because I've watched a lot of glacially paced movies lately, but it's funny to hear people say the Blade Runner movies are slow. I guess compared to the average Hollywood blockbuster they are, but both flew by for me.
AngmarsKing701
Member
Spielberg
Cameron
Kubrick
Scott
I'm thinking Nolan is waiting in the wings though, reading to kick someone out, if he keeps putting out high quality work.
I'm thinking Nolan is close as well. He's 10 for 10, at least for me. Very few directors, except the ones I put in my Mount Rushmore, have released that many great films. Shoutouts to Paul Thomas Anderson too. That film he's doing with Daniel Day Lewis is, now that Blade Runner 2049's out and Terrence Malick's Radegund hasn't been teased recently, my most anticipated film.
Frank Capra
Steven Spielberg
Joel & Ethan Coen
Wes Anderson
Apollo 13 (1995): Ron Howard's best film (certainly of his dramatic works), a remarkably tense recreation of an outcome the audience knows (though I discovered in the course of watching it that my mother, who was a teenager during the events depicted, was watching under the impression that they all died at the end). This sort of history procedural has gotten more common in the two decades since, and this is still one of the better examples of the genre. The mostly practical effects are high quality, and the early CGI isn't too bad in retrospect. Tom Hanks really was on fire as an actor through the 1990s; just one popular, critically acclaimed film after another.
old manatee
Banned
No. Watch the Final Destination movies instead. They are so bad they are good. Flatliners remake is a dreary dirge.