The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[John Dule]

Should I watch and review the Atlas Shrugged trilogy that was produced by an Objectivist think-tank tycoon and world poker champion and distributed by the right-wing Christian film company behind Dinesh D'Souza's movies?

[HillGoose]

watched one of the greatest series of ALL TIME again recently, TRANSFORMERS, Michael Bay is the greatest filmmaker to ever live, no one else could put so many FAST CARS and EXPLOSIONS into just a few films!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Should I watch and review the Atlas Shrugged trilogy that was produced by an Objectivist think-tank tycoon and world poker champion and distributed by the right-wing Christian film company behind Dinesh D'Souza's movies?

They could be funny, I guess.

[John Dule]

I'm doing it. It's weird to watch this series now... I remember being a teenager back in 2011 and seeing the posters for Atlas Shrugged in my local theater. I wondered "What the hell kind of a terrible poster is that? What does it mean?" Well, twelve years later... now I know.



Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

I'm more positively predisposed towards Ayn Rand than most people. Articulating your worldview through the lens of fiction is a massive undertaking, and I have at least a grudging respect for anyone who attempts it. I appreciate it when a story successfully balances emotional character drama with a broader point about the human experience-- for this reason, I've enjoyed everything from the eco-terrorist flick How To Blow Up A Pipeline to the infamous Confederate apologist film Gone With the Wind. Propaganda, when done effectively, is a valid form of art.

The key word here is "effectively." So what makes Atlas Shrugged (the novel) ineffective? The reasons are too numerous to list. It is unsubtle. It is self-indulgent. It lacks basic empathy for those with whom the author disagrees. Its characters are inhumanly one-dimensional. It was written by a narcissistic speed addict, and it shows.

Ultimately it's understandable that Rand-- who fled the Soviet Union and was thus uniquely disinclined to give an inch to anything remotely leftist-- wrote something like Atlas Shrugged. And there are nuggets of good prose and well-made points in the novel that will charm an open-minded reader. What is unforgivable, however, is the veneration that modern libertarians hold for this messy work, to the point that they felt compelled to adapt it as a trilogy of films. Not wanting to disrespect Mother Rand, these Objectivist acolytes adapted their 1200-page bible as faithfully as possible, refusing to make any alteration that could have appealed to a broader audience than LinkedIn influencers and perpetual Ponzi scheme victims. (The fanatical loyalty these "freethinkers" have for their idol is just one of many great ironies about this series.)

As a result of this reverent approach, every problem with Rand's work is present in these adaptations, joined by some fresh new ones as well. Chief among these is the limited budget, which is to blame for the flat cinematography, the poor special effects, and the rotating cast, which swaps out completely with each subsequent installment. The low budget also means that Rand's story-- which should really take place in the art deco jungle of the 1930s-- is told in modern times, making the constant emphasis on rail transit feel oddly quaint. But having said all that, this movie still cost $20 million. Where did that all go? It probably has something to do with the fact that this film was financed by right-wing worldwide poker champs and distributed by Dinesh D'Souza acolytes, which means a fair amount of the budget was likely embezzled.

The constantly changing cast doesn't ultimately matter, as these characters were never real people to begin with. Character development, already in short supply in the source material, is here completely subordinated to artless preaching about the inerrant power of capitalism. The actors have the same job as their characters: to serve as conduits through which libertarian ideology can be clumsily espoused. Yet somehow they manage to fail even at this simple task, with Taylor Schilling in particular giving an exceptionally terrible performance in the lead role. She can't be blamed for phoning it in for a production like this, but even so, her line deliveries are remarkably low-energy.

This adaptation also butchers the mystery of John Galt. More than anything else, this proves that the film is only interested in preaching to the converted-- it operates on the assumption that everyone in the audience will have read the book (and loved it), and therefore makes no effort to generate suspense or intrigue around this plot point. In the book, this mystery man is a complete enigma with unknown motives and a sinister plan to bring about the collapse of civilization. A smart screenwriter hoping to reach a wider audience would have seized upon this as a perfect dramatic focal point for the story. But in the first movie of the trilogy, Galt openly states his entire philosophy in a laughable scene that sounds like it was written using excerpts from Federalist Society newsletters. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

I do have to give this movie some credit. It made me laugh out loud several times, and the fact that it failed to turn a profit is such a delicious irony that it almost makes this entire debacle worth it. However, the movie should be embarrassing for Objectivists, infuriating for all other political persuasions, and utterly unconvincing even for people like me who enjoy pop philosophy. The only person I can imagine enjoying this is a DogeCoin owner who has never seen a movie before and instead entertains himself with model trains. If that demographic doesn't sound like you, avoid this at all costs.

[Farmlands]

Had a great time with the Fall of the House of Usher. I'm pretty disinclined to anything supernatural horror related, but the trailers and word of mouth looked promising, so I gave it a try.

Stellar cast of actors, didn't feel needlessly violent, and each episode's shock ending was balanced nicely by the calmer, poignant moments throughout, would reccomend if you're alright with a few of the darker scenes.

[John Dule]

Atlas Shrugged: Part II (2012)

Although none of the Atlas Shrugged movies are good, I was surprised to find that Part II feels almost like a real film at times-- high praise for a series developed by hedge fund managers whose idea of "art" begins and ends with the sculptures in their office park courtyards. Although the entire production is still hampered by a low budget, poor special effects, a terrible script, and a complete lack of subtlety, there are notable improvements here that deserve mention. In a way, these upgrades almost disappointed me-- the final product is neither unhinged enough to be entertaining nor competent enough to convey its message with any artistic integrity. Still, there were moments while watching this when I almost thought this series might improve with each new installment (Part III would soon put that theory to bed).

What makes Atlas Shrugged: Part II marginally less offensive than its counterparts? The answer has to do with a fundamental feature of political philosophy: It's a lot easier to identify problems than it is to propose solutions (political philosophy shares this trait with film criticism). And this chapter of Atlas Shrugged is all about identifying problems. The world it portrays is one of gradual decay, in which overregulation and corruption smother the world economy. Price controls, mismanagement of state-owned resources, Washington influence peddlers, and all manner of other libertarian boogeymen get their turn in the crosshairs of this installment. Anyone who's ever had to schedule an appointment at the DMV will not find this highly objectionable.

It's not until the next installment in the series that we begin to see what Ayn Rand's "solutions" to these problems look like. So for a brief few moments, we can sit back and enjoy the visual irony of a few corrupt politicians meeting their demise due to their own misguided policies. But like its source material, the film is only effective when going after low-hanging fruit. As soon as its own philosophy comes into focus (no matter how briefly), it devolves into long-winded monologues about the moral righteousness of fungible currency. Even those who agree with Rand's philosophy will find such scenes boring, because there is never any legitimate clash of ideological equals. Every advocate for left-wing altruism is a spineless, dishonest leech whose arguments are weak strawmen. Every advocate for virtuous Objectivist selfishness immediately wins over his audience with the strength of his oratory and conviction. The "villains" of this story never present any kind of ideological obstacle, and their motivations are never explored. They are not adversaries; they're just bowling pins waiting to be knocked over.

This is particularly frustrating because the philosophy espoused by the film is so aggressively counterintuitive. Ayn Rand's argument is that altruism, although it emerges from good intentions, harms those it intends to help. This isn't exactly science fiction (there are plenty of such examples in recent history, including Rand's native Russia), but Atlas Shrugged: Part II takes this position to rigid extremes and then refuses to justify those extremes to its audience. Instead it repetitively restates simplified summaries of its position, operating under the assumption that none of its viewers need convincing-- and they probably don't, because the only people who saw this were the converted. How exactly do "altruistic" policies create perverse incentives? Why is one's "need" not a valid basis for their compensation? A viewer of this movie will be able to tell you that selfishness is good. They will be unable to articulate why.

As awful as the dialogue scenes are, they're bolstered by a stronger cast. I say "stronger" because every single role is recast in this second installment, with zero continuity even in the supporting cast. This is both a blessing and a curse-- the casting changes are certainly confusing (especially if you watch all three films back-to-back as I did), but this is easily the best cast of the three. Patrick Fabian (who would later star as Howard Hamlin in Better Call Saul) gives a pitch-perfect performance as James Taggart, and Esai Morales is similarly well-cast as a Chilean copper magnate. They can't save the movie, but they at least emphasize the right words and know when to insert dramatic pauses, which is more than I can say for their predecessors.

Overall, this is easily the least awful installment in the Atlas Shrugged trilogy. Although it lacks all nuance and features perhaps the most ludicrous courtroom scene in all of movie history (clearly filmed in a community college classroom, no less), it's merely a harmless invective directed at bureaucracy done in the style of a mediocre made-for-TV movie. I will save my bile for Part III, when Ayn Rand presents us with her vision of an "ideal society." That's when the wheels really come off this train.

[John Dule]

Has anyone here seen Incendies? I just saw it tonight and liked it a lot, but I think I ruined it for myself by predicting the plot twist within the first five minutes.

[GoTfan]

Napoléon (2002 miniseries)

Needed a slight palate cleanser after Ridley Scott's film and found myself digging out this old miniseries from 2002.

The four-part series is a joint French-Italian production starring Christian Clavier as Napoleon, Isabella Rosselini as Josephine, Gerard Depardieu as Joseph Fouche, and John Malkovich as Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, and chronicles Napoleon's rise from the 13 Vendemiare to the Battle of Waterloo and his eventual exile to St. Helena.

All in all, the series is a triumph. The show looks absolutely gorgeous, with clear attention to detail from the entire costuming department; not for nothing did it win the Emmy for costume design in 2003. From what I can gather, the history is pretty accurate as well, and an effort is made to showcase the good and bad sides of Napoleon as well as giving a sympathetic portrayal of the people around him.

Much of this is anchored by a masterful performance from Christian Clavier as the Emperor. I've listed the 1970 film Waterloo as my favourite film of all time, much of it down to the sheer scale of the film and the performance of Rod Steiger as Napoleon. However, my biggest criticism is that Steiger seems to be trying way too hard in the film, including some rather obvious overacting and moments where he is meant to be on a horse, but is obviously on some sort of machine.

Clavier is best known for his more comedic roles, particularly with the Asterix series, but he had been drifting into more serious roles on TV for some time, and his abilities and skill are on full display here. He does give an insight into Napoleon himself, and portrays him as a reformer while not overshadowing his more dictatorial aspects, including explicitly showing him rigging the results of the plebiscite that would make him Emperor. All in all, he portrays Napoleon as a careful, strategic statesman and general, which provides a nice, understated contrast to Rod Steiger hamming it up every time he's on screen. This does not mean that he completely whitewashes Napoleon, and his performance ultimately does justice to Napoleon's eventual descent into all-or-nothing thinking, including a moment where he says he will "Reduce Vienna to rubble" which does nothing but confirm the Allies' fears that he simply cannot remain in power.

However, no production is perfect, and this is no different. Where it falls short is exactly where the Sharpe series fell short: portraying the battles. The battles of the Napoleonic Wars were the biggest until the First World War, with tens of thousands of dead on all sides, and armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Hell, this was the era where the idea of the small professional army faded and was replaced by the mass conscript army. Sometimes it does work; a lot of CGI and camera trickery is employed at Arcole, Austerlitz, Jena and Eylau, and sometimes the action is in a confined space, like the 13 Vendemiare.

Where this deficit really does show is the Battle of Waterloo. One of the biggest battles of its era, and yet we're expected to believe it's fought between a few hundred British and French soldiers. The deficit really does show here, and it's one of the more poorly executed parts of the series.

Ultimately though, this is called Napoléon, not The Battles of Napoléon, and it is more about him as a man and a statesman than him as a general. The twist is that it is based on a series of novels written by Max Gallo, which are sort of semi-fictional accounts of the era from Napoleon's perspective-definitely pick it up if you speak French or can find a translation.

If you need something to clear up the bad taste after Ridley Scott's attempt at a biopic, definitely give this little miniseries a chance.

[Rand]

May December was pretty good. It's more enjoyable if you're already familiar with the Mary Kay Letourneau scandal. Plus there'a huge, erect Korean penis in one of the shots so that's definitely worth pausing and rewatching two or three dozen times.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's been a fun week for being a cinephile who gets their biggest dopamine surges from schadenfreude: between 'Aqua Man 2' and Zack Snyder's 'Rebel Moon' getting torn apart in reviews.

But more positively, I also finally watched 'Triangle of Sadness.' I enjoyed it a lot, but it hasn't usurped 'The Northman' as my favorite movie of 2022. I thought it was an excellent dark comedy satire that stuck to its message while also featuring a series of some of the most disgusting scenes I've witnessed in a long time.

One thing that I couldn't ignore though is how much it reminded me of 'Glass Onion' which came out the same year and attempted to deal with similar ideas...in infinitely worse ways. As broad of a comedy as 'Triangle of Sadness' was, like with 'Glass Onion,' somehow it felt more realistic, grounded and certainly wittier. There was no soap opera writing that caused me to start feeling annoyed that a harsh reality of disappointment was going to set in. Instead, I was never really sure where the movie was going to go, and I especially enjoyed the more dimensional characters. The rich and privileged in this movie aren't portrayed like caricatures as Rian Johnson portrayed them, but as perfectly personable people who are really more ignorant to the working class and less fortunate, and how they live. One particular example is a sweet old couple who end up being the benefactors of a military grade weapon company. And there is some really sweet irony with what ends up happening to them. And then the movie takes an even bigger turn when the social dynamics of the characters change after being washed ashore on a deserted island.

Also kind of distracting is that this movie came out after the lead actress, Charlbi Dean, passed away in a pretty terrible fashion. The male lead has gone on to be in that 'Iron Claw' movie from this year that I'm hearing so many good things about. So it's sad to think that her career possibly could have blown up by now too. She's certainly pretty enough: she kind of has a Sofia Boutella-Penelope Cruz look to her.

 But anyway, I digress. Yeah, f*** Rian Johnson. You'll get the catharsis you want from that movie here with better writing, characters, and especially humor. Though it wears its message on its sleeve. If you're an Objectivist, ultra-Capitalist type, you may not enjoy this movie and its point, especially when it gets kind of didactic at a certain point. But there is still some nuance and layers to it that make it seem a bit more elevated and better thought out. I definitely recommend it, especially if you have a dark sense of humor like myself. More movies with scenes devoted to diarrhea and vomit should win the Palme D'Or...as ironic as that is...

[John Dule]

I watched Snyder's Rebel Moon, which just hit Netflix. Some thoughts:



"Written by Zack Snyder. Directed by Zack Snyder. Story by Zack Snyder." These words belong in only one place: Etched into the gates of hell, right below "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

And yet it gave me great pleasure to see these words at the end of Rebel Moon: Part One: A Child of Fire. For years, Zack Snyder's fanbase has insisted that their beloved director is a misunderstood genius whose brilliant creative instincts are routinely thwarted by studio incompetence. As evidence, they point to two of his films-- 300 and Watchmen-- both of which featured characters, dialogue, stories, and worldbuilding from their comic book source material. Armed with pre-made storyboards, Snyder was able to channel his creative energies towards what he does best: Filming individual beads of sweat in slow motion as they fall from semi-nude muscular bodies. (If not for slow-mo sequences, the average Snyder film would be about 45 minutes.)

So what happens when the visionary Snyder is given complete creative control over a project? You get Rebel Moon, a direct-to-Netflix sci-fi slog devoid of any redeeming qualities. At long last, this movie proves what I have known for years: Snyder's successes were not because of him. They were despite him.

Rebel Moon is perhaps best summarized as a movie with no ideas. The premise is lifted directly from Seven Samurai. The villains wear amalgams of Warhammer and Dune costumes. The weapons are lightsabers. The cantina scene from Star Wars and the hippogriff scene from Harry Potter are reenacted almost beat-for-beat. Yes, all art inevitably involves some borrowing-- but what makes Rebel Moon unique is how little effort it makes to conceal its theft. At best, the movie feels like fan fiction about characters from multiple franchises. At worst, it is unabashed plagiarism.

Snyder fought for a high degree of creative control over this movie, and it's even been labeled a "passion project" of his. But how could anyone have "passion" for ideas they so blatantly stole? If this is the full extent of Snyder's creativity (unfettered by studio meddling or source material), then it's actually quite sad. I've met accountants with more vivid imagination.

Snyder's creative bankruptcy aside, there is nothing redeeming about Rebel Moon. Sofia Boutella plays the film's heroine, who must defend a pastoral village from an evil empire while also satisfying Snyder's fetish for fit women wielding guns. Boutella, who began her career as a dancer and gymnast, has yet to add acting to her resume. As she attempts to earnestly deliver this banal dialogue, the contrast between her overly somber performance and the absurdity of her lines becomes unintentionally hilarious. Her chemistry with co-star Michiel Huisman is nonexistent, and even her physical abilities are underutilized-- the fight scenes are poorly choreographed and feel just as low-energy as the script.

Not even the movie's visuals (usually Snyder's sole forte) are impressive. In fact, they're quite awful. Like many recent Netflix productions, Rebel Moon features ugly combinations of sets and CGI that combine the worst possible traits of both. The sets are small and highly manicured, and any action taking place in them feels confined and staged as a result. The corny-looking props would look more appropriate as accessories to cosplay costumes than in a feature-length film. And when CGI is integrated into the sets, the result is horrendous-- the opening scene features a laughably fake-looking sci-fi backdrop that underscores the movie's artifice from the get-go. Visually it looks about the same as Firefly, a sci-fi TV series made in 2002 on a much smaller budget (but which was astronomically better in every other respect).

There's plenty to hate about Rebel Moon, but what's truly offensive is the brazen lack of effort that went into its fictional world. Snyder is no worldbuilder, and I never expected him to invent fake languages, glossaries of alien races, or unique cultures like serious sci-fi writers do. But as Rebel Moon lurches from one plot thread to the next, it throws together an assortment of sci-fi concepts (brain parasites, humanoid spiders, androids, monarchist robots, interplanetary politics, magic powers, forced breeding, hippogriffs, biological resurrection, and of course the "chosen one") without ever revisiting them.

Perhaps Snyder has a master plan for all these plot threads to pay off in Part Two (or, God forbid, Part Three). I prefer the simpler explanation: This script is crammed with random ideas that he thought were cool, and that is the full extent of thought that went into them. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of sci-fi writing. To have dramatic stakes, a sci-fi story must have rules and limits to what can and cannot happen. But Rebel Moon's universe is limited only by Snyder's willingness to plagiarize. The movie has no tension as a result, because any obstacle the heroes face can be easily overcome with a hastily introduced technology or deus ex machina.

Having said all this, I was thrilled to see Zack Snyder's name attached to this project in big, bold letters. Rebel Moon is an unqualified disaster that will win no fans even among its target demographic (adult men who still play with action figures). Perhaps with yet another critical and commercial failure under his belt, studios will stop giving Snyder ridiculous sums of money to burn on "passion projects" that are somehow more corporate than studio flicks. And maybe at long last, I will stop hearing about the "genius" of a man who has not made a watchable movie in fifteen years.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Snyder fanboys are the Trump cultists of the movie world.

Nolan fans can be pretty zealous too at times, but Nolan's films always at least have more artistic merit, thought, and competence.

[John Dule]

Snyder fanboys are the Trump cultists of the movie world.

Nolan fans can be pretty zealous too at times, but Nolan's films always at least have more artistic merit, thought, and competence.

Obligatory:

[Rand]

Just watched The Iron Claw. As a long-time pro-wrestling fan I was familiar with the tragedy of the Von Erich family and entered the theater fully prepared to shed some tears. What I wasn’t prepared for was the horror of Zac Efron’s monstrous jawline. Dear god what happened to the man...

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I heard The Boy and the Heron was good, by Hayao Miyazaki, who did "Spirited Away"... other than that I am not impressed with the current crop of movies.  2023 in film was horrible, very little that I wanted to see.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Should I watch and review the Atlas Shrugged trilogy that was produced by an Objectivist think-tank tycoon and world poker champion and distributed by the right-wing Christian film company behind Dinesh D'Souza's movies?

I didn't care for them, but go for it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I haven't seen a movie in 2024. I plan on watching Barbie later today.

Last one I saw was Wonka, which was somewhat surprisingly very good. This movie had "shameless cash grab" written all over it, yet it worked very well.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Nathan Fielder's "The Curse" is better than most prestige television. I can't look away. Some of the best satire I've seen on screen.

You get this overabundance of shows and films about the idle wealth of distant billionaires (some brilliant, some banal) stroking envy of an unknowable lifestyle and not nearly as much about the much realer economic threats and concerns of different class interests in the same community.

It has the classic Fielder method of long game cringe for everyday subjects but also has something so much deeper to say that we haven't really seen from him often (aside from perhaps the self-awareness ironies of The Rehearsal finale).

Perhaps the most ironic part is that its biggest detractors seem to be suffering from short-term video affliction and can't endure really entertaining storylines while this manages to capture the short form trends perfectly. I think it's possible to dislike this, even without being generational target, but I thoroughly enjoy this format. So many intertwined and hilarious storylines.

Bonus points for multiple instances of representation for people with heterodox views. And Nathan Fielder really can act - the fight in episode 3 was outstanding. Emma Stone's performance is so brave and daring.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm very interested in 'The Curse.' I hope to watch it soon.

[John Dule]

My review of Dream Scenario, the new Nic Cage movie:



In recent years, Hollywood has struggled to confront current social issues in a way that will stand the test of time. Great art engages with universal truths, not the 24-hour news cycle-- but the temptation to be "topical" is often irresistible for screenwriters, even if it means sacrificing long-term relevance for a cheap gimmick. As a result, films that mention Covid-19, TikTok, and Donald Trump always feel more like late-night comedy sketches than enduring works of art.

Dream Scenario attempts to walk this tightrope between topicality and universality with a highly original premise: A schlubby middle-aged professor (Nic Cage) suddenly finds himself cast into a media spotlight when thousands of strangers begin seeing him as a character in their dreams. For a time, this newfound fame gives him the recognition he has always craved. But as the collective unconscious begins to depict him in darker and more violent roles, he is ostracized for things he has never done and over which he has no control. His dream of notoriety rapidly becomes a nightmare.

The way I've described it here, Dream Scenario almost sounds like it could evolve into a Lynchian psychological thriller. However, this premise is used as a springboard from which the movie satirizes modern viral phenomena, memes, and the increasing commodification of everyday life. This is a clever way to navigate the problem of "topical" filmmaking-- the script tackles issues like internet notoriety and tabloid celebrity worship metaphorically while also remaining engaging on a literal level. Every new scene is unpredictable, yet in hindsight almost every plot development feels completely logical. Still, the immersion is sometimes broken when the writers abandon all pretext of subtlety. Jordan Peterson is name-dropped at one point, as are the alt-right, Joe Rogan, and the words "cancel culture." It's hard not to think that these scenes will feel dated in just a few years.

But as always, Nicolas Cage elevates this material as no one else could. Playing a chronically neurotic mediocre man who desperately craves respect from his family and peers, he travels to depths of emasculation that are genuinely discomforting. In the scenes where Cage's acting is allowed to speak for itself (minus any literal references to modern politics or culture), his struggle feels much more universal. With a few physical tics and stammering line deliveries, he expertly conveys the constant humiliation of anonymity.

Dream Scenario attempts to balance a biting satire of current events with more universal themes of fame, respect, and masculinity. While it doesn't always hit the mark, it at least creates a solid blueprint for integrating these topics into a screenplay intelligently. More could have been done with this premise-- especially the conclusion, which veers too far into social commentary aimed at low-hanging fruit. But as a satire of the arbitrary nature of modern internet fame, it shines.

[T'Chenka]

For some reason I can't seem to figure out, I've not visited this thread in a while.

Some extremely good movies that I've seen in the last month or two:

- Network (1976)
- Poor Things (2023)

Some very good movies I've seen recently:

- Memories Of Murder (2003)
- Saltburn (2023)
- Anatomy Of A Fall (2023)

[T'Chenka]

I heard The Boy and the Heron was good, by Hayao Miyazaki, who did "Spirited Away"... other than that I am not impressed with the current crop of movies.  2023 in film was horrible, very little that I wanted to see.

The Boy And The Heron - much like Howl's Moving Castle - is mostly very good, with a LOT of really good ingredients in the mix. However, like Howl, it suffers from a number of writing issues. In my opinion, there are 3 Miyazaki films that stand above the rest: Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke and Castle In The Sky. Howl and Heron should have been part of that top 3, making it a top 5, but their writing issues have lowered them down the rankings list for me quite a bit.

The only Miyazaki films that I can say Heron is definitely better than (in my subjective view, of course) are My Neighbor Totoro and Ponyo. So yeah it makes it into the top 9. Still a very good film, but cannot live up to it's own potential.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Two days ago I watched Kiki's Delivery Service. Was great, I guess I'd rate it 8.0/10.

[Progressive Pessimist]

So, I'm sitting in a hospital bed right now with an IV pumping into my veins, and I figured with the time to kill it was about time I started a Letterboxd account.

I literally just started, so I don't know when or how much content my profile will have, but my username is DoctorNarp ('Hot Fuzz' reference). Feel free to add me, or however it works.

By the way, 'Dream Scenario' sounds a lot like that one episode of 'Spongebob' when he was intruding on other characters' dreams.

[Ferguson97]

I watched quite a few movies in the last few days

Get Out - It took me a long time to get around to finally seeing this one, and I have to say that it  lives up to the hype. I knew that this was Peele's directorial debut, but if I didn't know that, I'd have assumed that he was a seasoned veteran. The movie did a really, really good job at making you feel uneasy. Kaluuya was a phenomenal lead.

Us - Another of Peele's films. My biggest complaint is that the premise was underutilized. I know that certain things fall apart if you think about it for too long, but I really have a lot of questions about how the cloning works. I know that there are generations of clones, and that they're forced to procreate with each other in accordance with the actions of their "real world" equivalents. This makes sense for families like the Wilsons and the Tylers, but what about families who have had people immigrate to America sometime since the creation of the clone project? Does someone with an American dad and a Korean mother just not have a clone? Do immigrants not have clones? Anyway, rant over. The movie itself was really good. The acting was incredible, there were times where I forgot that there weren't different actors playing the clones. The twist was a tad predictable, but it was the logical conclusion of the film's implicit "nature vs nurture" themes.

Heat - I was honestly disappointed with this one. I can't even say that the film was just mediocre, it's a movie that has a bunch of really great scenes (coffee shop, airport shootout) mixed with a lot of terrible scenes (any scene with Robert De Niro's love interest, who is one of the least believable characters in all of film history). There were a lot of plot points that went nowhere (Waingro being a serial killer) or came out of nowhere (Al Pacino's stepdaughters suicide attempt), that made me think this story would have been better served as a miniseries.

Taken - I will always appreciate movies that have very straightforward premises and deliver upon it effectively. Liam Neeson's daughter has been taken, so he's going to get her back. Brilliant. I'm not ashamed to admit that the movie made nearly cry at times, not just because of the deeply disturbing portrayals of sex trafficking, but because of Neeson's great performance. You know that in a movie like this, he's going to succeed, but you still find yourself on the edge of your seat, eagerly waiting for himt to do so.