The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[Progressive Pessimist]

Go see my various posts in the "Film Discussion" thread if you want with my thoughts on 'Doctor Sleep,''Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,' 'Parasite,' 'Samurai Cop,' and 'The Lighthouse.' But other films I've watched for the first time that I didn't comment on in there, during quarantine, include:

-'Fritz the Cat': the infamous and thoroughly unpleasant X-rated animated film from the 1970's about the 1960's.
-Many 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' episodes, which are almost movies in themselves.
-'Midnight Special': Jeff Nichols continues to bore me.
-'Project Metalbeast': a surprisingly boring science fiction werewolf movie.
-'Slithis': a really bad man-in-rubber-suit monster movie from the 1970's.
-The original Swedish version of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo': I have only seen the American version previously (while good, the American version is better), and currently I am in the process of watching the sequel, 'The Girl Who Played with Fire.'
-'The Wicker Man': the original, not the Nicolas Cage schlock classic.
-'Things': Quite possibly the worst film ever, for real.
-'Wolf Cop': Yes, you read that right. Another, more tongue-in-cheek, werewolf movie I found randomly on Hulu.

Young Frankenstein (1973) is one of the funniest comedies ever made.

The Witch (2015) started, but will wait for my girlfriend to watch the rest.

Buffalo 66 (1998) started, but will wait for my girlfriend to watch the rest.

Into The Void (2009) is the name of my favourite Black Sabbath song. Also a great film about a brother and sister living in Japan.
 

You know my thoughts on this one. I'm curious what you think of it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I also forgot to mention that I had also seen 'The Nice Guys' for the first time. I don't know why it took me such a long time to see it, it's a really entertaining movie...minus the actual mystery that Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling are trying to solve. I really found that uninteresting. Otherwise I would love to see another movie with these two (and Gosling's character's daughter too) and a more interesting mystery-they were a delight to watch.

My house has been rotating who chooses the entertainment night by night. Tonight was my choice, so I picked Martin Scorsese's Silence, which is easily in my top five movies from the past decade. I'm really confused by religious people who like this movie; it's pretty obvious that the Christian missionaries come across as terrible people in it. But I suppose the fact that it managed to trick some Christians into thinking that it was affirming their faith makes it all the more enjoyably subversive.

What did the Driver or Garfield character do that made them bad people? The last time I saw it was in theaters and I don't recall that.

They watch from a distance as the Japanese officials torture and kill their followers. They actively evangelize despite knowing the danger that it poses to the natives. They show no respect for Japanese customs or culture and are entirely focused on spreading their own subjective beliefs. When Garfield is captured, he even has a moment of panic in which he yells at the Japanese Christians and asks "Why are you so calm? We're all going to die!" before remembering that he'd told them to believe in the afterlife and martyrdom. Just all-around reprehensible people who are deliberately made out to be intolerably self-righteous.

I actually had the same thoughts when I first watched it too. Sure, the Japanese Shogunite is being s***ty for persecuting Christians, but the priests' sanctimoniousness in converting Japanese citizens made them culpable in ways too. I actually found that more interesting than it being a routine Christians good, pagans bad sort of film; whether that was intentional or not.

I think this was one of Scorcese's more underrated films too, but I really had a problem with the actors and their bad attempts at Portuguese accents. Hell, Liam Neeson didn't even try to do one. I wish they cast actual Portuguese actors, even if it took big name actor appeal from the film. Bad accents and dialects are always a pet peeve of mine in movies though, so maybe it's just me. And I never really like Andrew Garfield in anything, he's okay but never really impresses me. Other than 'Under the Silver Lake,' that is. That was the first film I actually really liked him in. Maybe it's because he plays an uncompromising douche-bag in that one.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Gonna try out Murder On The Orient Express or The Last Airbender (which is supposedly a trainwreck) tonight.

'The Last Airbender' is one of the worst movies of the 2010's. It's even worse if you're a fan of the series. I saw the movie before I got into the series, and it was already horrible. After watching the series and becoming a huge fan of it it's somehow so much worse!

I also forgot to mention that I had also seen 'The Nice Guys' for the first time. I don't know why it took me such a long time to see it, it's a really entertaining movie...minus the actual mystery that Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling are trying to solve. I really found that uninteresting. Otherwise I would love to see another movie with these two (and Gosling's character's daughter too) and a more interesting mystery-they were a delight to watch.

Have you seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang? You'd probably like it if you liked The Nice Guys; it's from the same director and I think it was the better film of the two.

I've never seen it, I am interested to see it now though.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Since I last posted here I finished watching 'The Girl Who Played With Fire' and watched 'The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.' T'Chenka was right, it was underwhelming. Though 'Played with Fire' was too. It makes me wonder what Fincher would have done with these two if the American versions of the films were to go on. Could he have elevated them like he did with 'Dragon Tattoo?'

I also saw 'The French Connection' for the first time. It was good but I don't really get what makes it so highly acclaimed. There was nothing really remarkable about it to me.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Alright, a dose of Art House movies I have watched in the last week that will melt your mind:

The Wicker Man (1973)  is a brilliantly disturbing film for its day which would have set a lot of minds thinking.



There is a nude scene with a young Britt Ekland from Sweden that may cause your girlfriend or wife to give you a clip over the back of ear if you watch too intently.


Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) is not for the light-hearted, but the film production and tension are tremendous and extreme respectively.



I found this enthralling, but a little difficult to watch. It is loosely based on an ancient Greek mythological story.


Apostle (2018) is about a man who enters a cult isolated on an island as he attempts to find a relative.




Gretel and Hansel (2020) concerns a brother and sister evicted into a world of pestilence from their cruel stepmother.



Turned out of their home with the door slammed at their back, the pair "set out to fend for themselves with only the clothes on their hides". Their foray into the woods is partly magical and partly horrifying. “Beware of those who offer gifts,” Hansel reminds Gretel after they are are taken in by a friendly woman in black.

Loved this interpretation of 1 classic story.

Out of the four, I would watch Gretel and Hansel and The Wicker Man again. I loved the cinematography of Gretel and Hansel.

I saw all of these movies also, save for 'Gretel and Hansel,' which I want to see.

I watched 'The Wicker Man' recently as well. I love the remake in an ironic way, but the original still holds up as a classic even though I didn't necessarily find it that scary and kind of thought that the main character earned his fate.. And uh, that scene...yeah, that was quite the surprise, but if he had taken her up on that offer everything would have been fine. It was kind of frustrating. I will say that I actually enjoyed the song she sings-it's beautiful yet also haunting. I liked many of the songs in the movie actually. It was weirdly almost a musical.

I loved 'The Killing of a Sacred Deer' too. And to T'Chenka, maybe this film will be more tolerable for you if you understand how it's a retelling of a Greek myth. But even with that in mind, it is still a really hard movie to watch and is just so unsettling yet also darkly comedic at times. This movie made me despise Barry Keoghan though. It was the first movie I ever saw him in and every movie I saw him in after that just made me want to see him die. I got my wish with his role in 'Dunkirk.' I legitimately applauded when he died. F***ed up, I know. But he is such a despicable little s*** in 'The Killing of a Sacred Deer' and *SPOILERS* didn't get much of a comeuppance in that one. I guess it also doesn't help that he has an incredibly punchable face already.

Finally, I didn't care much for 'Apostle.' I loved how inventive they got with some of the horrifically grisly violence and the production design, but the main character and story didn't interest me. Really, it was just a retelling of 'The Wicker Man' with a less compelling and coherent conflict and mythology to me.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' is my absolute favorite Western and one of my favorite movies ever. Westerns are actually probably my least favorite genre, so that says a lot!

Anyway, as for what I actually wanted to post about, I finally watched 'Joker' yesterday night. I'm not going to please many people by saying this but it left me feeling very conflicted. I am somewhere in between those who love it and those who despise it.

I guess I'm going to start putting my notoriously long-winded film thoughts here now by the way.

I'm not sure where to even begin. I guess I'll have to start with Joaquin Phoenix. He really was as fantastic as he has been praised as being, I think he deserved his Oscar. I was always worried that he would be channeling Heath Ledger too much, but it's a much different kind of Joker. That makes it an impossible comparison though. I find it hard to compare any of the Jokers we've had on film since they are all so different, let alone be able to rank them (with the obvious exception of Jared Leto, of course, who is easily the worst and probably will always be the worst Joker). Phoenix carries a lot of this movie, and even though I've seen him play many eccentric characters, this one stands out.

As for the story, it does very obviously borrow from 'Taxi Driver' and 'The King of Comedy' but I was fine with it. It actually worked for me, and the elements that resembled those films were what worked the best in my view. Meanwhile though, I think the film was actually overstuffed. The subplot with Arthur's imaginary relationship with his neighbor felt completely unnecessary to me, we already had moments that displayed his delusional tendencies, what was the point of it? Was it just something else for life to dump on him with? Was it just a way to cast another woman in this mostly male populated film? Speaking of which, there were way too many things adding up to push him over the edge and make him sympathetic, it got pretty ridiculous at a certain point and also felt slightly manipulative. Everything within a short amount of time goes wrong for him, when a few of those things could have been removed and still make his turn to insanity understandable. Furthermore, the fact that everything that happens to him is beyond his control felt really contrived to me. I think that's the real aspect that made critics who screened it early fear how it might influence internet edge-lords. The mentality of people being turned to extreme means due to feeling helpless in the face of adverse effects beyond their control is the type of thing that appeals to alt-righters and other pockets of the stereotypical white twenty-something demographics who commit a mass shooting. Thankfully though, it doesn't appear that any were influenced by this move, so perhaps the point is moot. I'm just saying that it wasn't so irrational for early perceptions to come away with that concern.

Delving further into something else that bothered me, as far as the character and story is concerned, I also thought the Thomas Wayne subplot was unnecessary. I think a reference to the Waynes' influence in Gotham City at the time was unavoidable, but I don't think it was necessary to make him such a large part of the story and yet another event to lead to Arthur snapping. Arthur could still have learned that he was adopted and abused as a child, and feel betrayed by his mother, without it being so closely linked to Thomas Wayne. This may be just one of a nearly infinite array of interpretations that can be done with the Joker, but we've already the Joker being directly linked to Bruce Wayne in the original Tim Burton 1989 'Batman,' it didn't feel very unique to have Arthur have some involvement in the death of Bruce's parents. Bruce Wayne, at the simplest, can simply oppose the Joker due to ideological reasons, that's always been the real bedrock of their rivalry. Can I also say that I have seen the Waynes' deaths enough, I know what happens! You don't have to keep doing it! Also the age disparity between Arthur and Bruce doesn't make it seem like they would ever become archenemies. Joaquin Phoenix is 43, and Bruce Wayne was eight, I think. But even if I were to buy that Arthur is slightly younger Phoenix, he wouldn't pass for anything younger than 38 maybe. So a thirty year difference still doesn't seem right. A vengeful Bruce Wayne in peak physical condition and with all the attributes he has (physicality, knowledge, wealth, etc.) would make mincemeat of this Joker pretty easily. I don't think Bruce Wayne or the death of Bruce's parents needed to be in the movie at all. Maybe throw in a reference on a news  paper or something, or already make this film take place with an adult Bruce Wayne, and I would have bought it more. I wish I could separate this Joker from Batman, but the movie included the Dark Knight in some form, so I just couldn't let it go.

I also didn't see the link between Arthur's traumas and him becoming a criminal mastermind. I know that this an interpretation of a Joker origin story, but one thing that is universal to every Joker adaptation is that he is a criminal genius. If he isn't, why is he an equal to Bruce Wayne in terms of influence, and his adversary? He certainly became a sociopath in this movie, but how did anything he did in the movie lead to him becoming so powerful in the Gotham underworld? Additionally, how can he become an infamous criminal if he becomes a martyr for the numerous numbers of Gotham's disillusioned underclass as this movie portrayed? And yet again, that's another subplot of the film that felt unnecessary to me. It just felt like a convoluted way just to lead to the death of the Waynes. I didn't even buy that the death of a bunch of rando yuppies on a subway would even lead to a major revolution like it did in Gotham City, even in spite of the massive inequalities that were present. In real-life most people would probably say "that's terrible" or "oh well" and move on with their lives. I know that this is a comic book movie, but it seems to pride itself on its realism, so I couldn't help but be bothered by that too.

Of course, there is the interpretation of the film that I stumbled upon after watching it where some believe that Arthur was an unreliable narrator and that the entire movie was one of his delusions being presented to his doctor at the end of the movie. That immediately negated any of my problems with the film..until I thought about it more, and the death of the Waynes came back to mind. How would Arthur have known about that as it was presented in the film? And why would he want to include it in his delusional fantasy? Wouldn't he be the one killing them if this was his id creating a fantasy for him? There is no other way to look at it as Arthur was present in just about every scene of the film, I think, other than that moment. So, you know what? I don't buy that interpretation. I'm sorry, my criticisms still remain.

Oh also, small nitpick, there was a real missed opportunity for them not to use 'Tears of a Clown' by Smokey Robinson and The Miracles in the film. They used just about every other clown related song. I don't see why they couldn't have licensed it. I did like the score though, those licensed songs almost weren't even necessary.

So overall I think I would have liked this movie more if 1. it wasn't so over-hyped for me. and 2. if it was just a tad bit simpler and not as long. If it wasn't for Phoenix and his commanding, compelling performance it's possible that I would have hated this movie, as some do. I definitely won't be watching it ever again, though I don't regretting seeing it at all either. Part of that over-hype was also how "smart" people thought this film was in commenting on mental illness and society's inequities. I personally don't think the movie was making an effort to provide commentary on those issue, they were just used as a backdrop to Arthur's transformation into the Joker, as I saw it. And if it was attempting a message in actuality I think it failed somewhat because it portrays the mentally ill as prone to violence and having a vengeful nature. It does a disservice to the mentally ill who in reality are more likely to be victims of violence and hurt themselves before others. And the income inequality message didn't say anything better or newer than any other property. Need I remind you that 'Parasite' came out around the same time and discussed the issues of economic disparity in a far more sophisticated way.

Despite saying that, I should probably praise the direction, it was pretty good, especially when it's from a director who is mostly known for broad comedies. Visually though, Gotham just looked like 1980's New York City to me, I would have preferred just a bit more visual flair with how the city looks. I already saw a conventional looking Gotham City in the Nolan films. I should also say that, I didn't even find how "dark" it was that appealing either. Sure, there's some swearing and violent deaths, but it's still few and far between. It really wasn't as hard to watch as it was built up to be by some. I actually think they could have pushed their R-rating more. As it is though, I do like it more than the actual Scorcese film from last year. It was at least an interesting and unique interpretation of a classic villain. I welcome more character-driven comic book films like this that follow an antagonist and why they went bad, especially if they are R-rated, and even if they ape off of classic movies done in a more unconventional way. I'm fine with that. So this film being made was an overall good thing for that reason alone. I am also interested in seeing Phoenix reprise his role here in a sequel (which they will make at some point, let's face it. This film is the most profitable comic book movie, and R-rated movie, ever) that maybe examines his rise to power in Gotham's criminal underground more. In regards to my criticisms of them not showing much of that in this film, it could be that this is the plan maybe? Hell, they can still take inspiration from Scorcese movies like 'Goodfellas' or 'The Departed.' Even if we never get to see him face Batman in this standalone series, that still actually sounds awesome to me! Villains are often the most interesting aspects of stories to me anyway. Can we finally get that solo Magneto movie in this vein?

Next time I will probably be talking about 'Uncut Gems' when it comes out on Netflix later this week. So look forward to that...if you care.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The subplot with Arthur's imaginary relationship with his neighbor felt completely unnecessary to me, we already had moments that displayed his delusional tendencies, what was the point of it? Was it just something else for life to dump on him with?

Yes but also I think that one is more about making the audience realize what's really going on with Arthur, with plot and character considerations secondary to that.

Delving further into something else that bothered me, as far as the character and story is concerned, I also thought the Thomas Wayne subplot was unnecessary. I think a reference to the Waynes' influence in Gotham City at the time was unavoidable, but I don't think it was necessary to make him such a large part of the story and yet another event to lead to Arthur snapping. Arthur could still have learned that he was adopted and abused as a child, and feel betrayed by his mother, without it being so closely linked to Thomas Wayne.

Arthur clearly needs a father figure, see the first hallucination scene with Murray / DeNiro. The film gives him a second more real father, only for that father to totally reject him, and then at the end Murray rejects him too ("call the police"). Arthur loves his mom, but his love for Franklin and Thomas as fathers is idealized and romanticized. Not only was he being rejected / dumped by HIS fathers, he was being dumped by really good loving caring fathers (in Arthur's mind), which is a much bigger loss. It's the same as what happened with the neighbour. If she rejected him, okay sure it hurts. If she was in love with him and they were happy and then suddenly it never existed, he feels lile he lost a lot more, whether or not he ever REALLY had it being irrelevant.

Can I also say that I have seen the Waynes' deaths enough, I know what happens! You don't have to keep doing it!

If there's one thing comic book movie fans love, it's when the more grounded serious films find ways to connect to the larger Marvel / DC universe without negatively affecting the film itself or negatively affecting the film as a stand-alone film. This was a rather nice youch and many of the fan-boys LOVE that they added this in.

Next time I will probably be talking about 'Uncut Gems' when it comes out on Netflix later this week. So look forward to that...if you care.

Please do. I thought it was a very good film and I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially on the directing and cinematography in particular.

I see your point with Thomas Wayne, I got what they were going for. I just think it was way too close of a connection to Batman, especially when we may never see this Joker ever get involved with opposing Batman (as far as I know, this film is still standalone even in spite of the Batman film franchise being rebooted with Robert Pattinson). That same story-line could have occurred with anyone else in the place of Wayne as that father figure and still had the same effect and purpose. That first fantasy of Arthur with Murray was enough for me to make the point of his want for a healthy father-son relationship and to detail his delusions. That goes for the death of the Waynes too. Like I said, it could have occurred on the news or in a newspaper or something. I have nothing against them addressing it, but it's kind of a pet peeve of mine to have seen it so much. I get that the fans love to see it, it's subjective. But with my subjectivity, I didn't like it.

Prisoners (2013)
Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Getting John Dule vibes from Hugh Jackman. What a great underrated under-seen film. The Academy should be disgusted with themselves for not nominating Jackman for actor / supporting actor here. There's NO way he doesn't get that nomination in a just world. Jake Gyllenhaal is great, Paul Dano is overshadowed but also incredible.

I just can't recommend this film enough. 9/10 easily, I'd have to think but maybe 9.5/10 or 10/10.

I really liked this movie too, but I just wanted a better motivation out of the antagonist when they are revealed. I just couldn't get past how vague it is.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It took me three days to watch it, but I finally finished 'Uncut Gems.' It took me such a long time to watch it because it was such an anxiety-inducing, stressful movie. I had to turn it off after a certain amount of time each time I tried to watch it since it was so erratic and overstimulating. It may even have been the most stressful watching experience I ever had, at least in recent memory. I f***ing loved it in just about every way in spite of that though!

Obviously I need to start by talking about Adam Sandler. His character here is a very frustrating one. He is an absolute scumbag who cheats on his wife, takes advantage of others, and prioritizes his gambling addiction above all else; but you weirdly find yourself rooting for him throughout the film. Things continue spiraling out of control for him to the point where you just want to see him get out of it. It's an underdog story in a way. But every time you're cheering for him when something goes his way, he goes out of his way to f*** it up, and then you hate him again.

It's strangely poetic because I feel the same way about Sandler and his career. I've despised every post-'Waterboy' Happy Madison film of his (with the notable exception of 'You Don't Mess with the Zohan,' which I don't even love. I just appreciate it's creativity, weirdness, and having an actual positive message unlike the rest of his films I hate which are just lazy and obnoxious) but when Sandler is in a film with a competent director, he can be great! Like I said, it's frustrating. Now, here he isn't actually playing much of a different character from those he usually does, they often fall into two broad categories of either a misunderstood schlub or a straight man with a near perfect life. Here, he is kind of a combination of both. Howard, his character is that schlub but could be that straight man with a near perfect life if he didn't keep constantly being solely responsible for the obvious mistakes in his life and worsening the situations he finds himself in (kind of an opposite of Arthur from 'Joker' where the bad things that happened to him were always beyond his control). He has a beautiful house, a successful business, and a family yet none of it seems enough for him. So needless to say, I found both the character and Sandler's performance with him as this film's anchor and what makes it so compelling. It is kind of annoying though that even when playing his serious, less vane roles that he still always gets a beautiful woman (sometimes more than one), who would be out of his character's league, cast as his love interest. Maybe it's in his contract or something.

And speaking of performances this might be the first time I have ever seen a basketball player; Kevin Garnett in this case who is a huge part of the film, be decent at acting. That alone makes this film worthy of praise.

Beyond that I enjoyed how grounded and realistic the whole film felt. Everything was equally pretty and ugly when it came to the cinematography. It added to the claustrophobia and chaotic nature of this film. Same with it's soundtrack which i really enjoyed. It had this weird ambient, synth sound to it that reminded me of the 1980's at its most garish. It's a hard film to watch, but still somehow enjoyable to watch. The ending of this movie made me feel like absolute s*** but I enjoyed every second of it, as on edge I was as I watched things continue to snowball out of control for Howard.

Finally, I have to acknowledge the embarrassing amount of glee I got from my honetown getting briefly mentioned in the film. It gets extra points for that.

So I would definitely recommend it, but you may or may not want to take a xanax before watching it. I look forward to what the directors, the Safdie Brothers do next, because as far as I'm concerned, they're on an upward trajectory, as I liked this film more than 'Good Time,' their last one, which was already pretty good.

[Progressive Pessimist]

So my brother is a cinephile (or, perhaps more accurately, "kinophile") and since restrictions have eased we've been watching a few movies here and there, maybe one every week or so.

Uncut Gems
Tonight's watch. I am in absolute awe. The movie starts out very awkwardly, primarily because of the nonstop pace of conversation, but mostly because of the strange sound-mixing in the first few scenes. It is very hard to discern what is being said and we had to adjust the volume. I don't know if this problem disappears later, or if the movie draws you in enough for it to just be part of the package. What is so magnetic about the movie is that our protagonist is an on-paper despicable man who we are nevertheless compelled to root for as he embarks on an incessant ride through stress-filled situation after stress-filled situation. In each scene in a way that can probably only be compared to a horror film, you are on the edge of your seat, jittering, wanting to scream, swinging at the air. Added to this is the possibility that the man's entire social circle is either unreliable or outright dislikes him. As someone who despises real life awkwardness, my heart was pounding watching this absolute madman somehow walk himself into one terrible situation after another, all the while caught in a revolving circle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. And just when you think the movie should hit its resolution, you are thrown into another half hour of inescapable drama. Meanwhile, the soundtrack--reminiscent of Vangelis' Bladerunner work or anything by Tangerine Dream--is at once alienating and glorious.

The Lighthouse
Overall good, but I can't say I "got" it in terms of the ending. As I write this, I have told my brother only minutes ago (right before he left my house) "How could I have known Uncut Gems would f#ck me up more than The Lighthouse?" Writing the review at this time does not seem fair. Nevertheless: solid performances by our two costars, and definitely looking forward to what Robert Pattinson can bring to future roles. My favorite feature would have to be the tendency of Defoe's character to lapse into ocean-inspired verse at the drop of a hat. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that viewers are supposed to walk away with anything more than an "Oh, that happened."

Dune
As I was a yuge fan of Bladerunner 2049, I was excited to see that Dennis Villenueve is doing the 2020 release of Dune. This inspired me to read the book, so that I would be prepared for the movie when it hopefully comes out later this year. The night after I finished the book I made sure to catch the 1984 movie. Terrible special effects (even for the time), and they crammed 2/3 of the book into about 1/3 of the movie. Those two things a given, a fantastic ride for any reader of the book to see this thing in film. My two other friends who have read Dune and seen the movie have the exact same review--great film with about a million caveats--which is to say that it's much better than I expected. Anyone watching this without reading the book first is doing themselves a disservice. "Usul! We have more wormsign than even God has ever seen!" I hope I say those words on my deathbed because they are delivered fantastically. And let's not forget the bombastic portrayal of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen by Kenneth McMillan. I also want to say that despite the film's special effects being far from great even for the 1980s, Lynch embarked on an incredibly ambitious undertaking in bothering to five form to things that are scarcely at all describe in the books, right down to the Hellscape that is his portrayal of Geidi Prime.

Blue Velvet
As you may guess from above, I've been on a Lynch kick. It comes both from reading Dune and from subsequently getting into Twin Peaks. My film prof was a yuge fan of this movie. I don't totally get it, I'll admit. Probably not the type of thing I'll rewatch, and in some ways veering into male fantasy where Kyle MacLachlan's character can have his cake and eat it too, so to speak.

I'm a big David Lynch fan too, and of weird-ass surreal films in general (like 'The Lighthouse') but have you seen 'Mulholland Drive?' That's my favorite film of his and I'm curious how you'd feel about it since you seem to be trying to interpret these films. I love it, and I don't even get it, but I think a large part of Lynch's films is that they aren't really meant to be understood, he kind of makes his films for himself but at least makes them engaging enough for audiences too.

I would also recommend 'Under the Silver Lake.' It's from last year but it has a very Lynchian feel to it. I think it should still be on Amazon Prime. It's more understandable than most Lunch films, if you ask me, but still quite a bit on the abstract side.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I watched a couple movies recently, both of which are on Amazon Prime video:

Suburban Sasquatch: This is a "so bad it's good" lower grade than B-movie of somewhat rising popularity, and it mostly deserves it. The scenes of the Bigfoot (who can teleport) indiscriminately killing people are some of the funniest things I have ever seen in how ridiculous and poorly done they are. The Bigfoot costume, the repetitive noises it makes, and the pathetic gore are especially highlights. How can you not laugh when Bigfoot rips a stuffed poodle in half or drinks the blood out of a man's leg. However, the rest of the movie, while bad in just about every way, isn't nearly as compelling in its badness. There's a lot of scenes of people just talking that doesn't even come close to adding to the film's "plot" or "character development" or anything. Sure, the dialogue and acting is bad, but not really in a fun way, it's just dull and annoying to watch. I recommend fast forwarding through those parts and just enjoying the sasquatch scenes. A supercut of all of that would be as good as any of the other famous ironically enjoyable movies out there.

Knives Out: I decided to give Rian Johnson's latest movie a chance, even in spite of feeling scorned by what he (and Kathleen Kennedy just as much) did to the 'Star Wars' sequel trilogy and finding 'Looper' lackluster in spite of its fun premise. But I like mystery films, so maybe he could win me over with this one. And he did! This is a great film with a great cast and a great look, especially. Before watching it I was under the impression that it was a period piece, but that was mostly due to the look of the house where most of the movie takes place in as well as the fairly timeless attire of the other characters, but it very much takes place in the present. Johnson was definitely going for a modern day take on Hercule Poirot, and that influence clearly shows right down to our detective character having a French name.

As much as I enjoyed it though in almost every way, I figured out the entire mystery, with the exception of a few details, less than halfway through the film, so it isn't quite the most engaging or complex mystery ever. It's still fun though. I would also warn those who don't like social commentary about this film. Rian Johnson seems to wear his politics on his sleeve and especially with his dislike of rich people in particular (which may or may not be ironic). This film is very left wing in its themes and may frustrate some. Obviously it didn't bother me though. I was especially amused by one character, a teenage boy who is apparently into alt-right politics, and looks like what I imagine someone like Grassr00ts does. I hate the actor who played him though: Jaeden Lieberher/Martell. I know it sounds mean but it's because he's another one of those whose first film I saw them in cemented how I view them. Here it was appropriate though because he plays an unlikable borderline sociopath and that's what he was in 'The Book of Henry' which I first saw him in. After he also played a little sociopath in that who tried to get his mother to kill his neighbor (seriously that movie is bonkers, check it out) I can't unsee him as it, and he's been in quite a lot of other films before then and since then like the recent 'It' movies. Not only do I find him weird and creepy, but he is also just boring in everything I've seen him in even as his characters are weirdos, I'm sorry. He's the only actor I didn't care for in this movie which, as I mentioned before, has a truly excellent cast. Though it's Daniel Craig, Ana De Armas, and Chris Evans who have the most screen-time. I am not forgiving Rian Johnson for 'The Last Jedi' but I can't hate him anymore, he just needs to keep making films like this instead of science-fiction. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel with Craig reprising his role as Benoit Blanc solving other mysteries, and supposedly one is in the works. I can say that I am looking forward to it. I just hope that I don't solve it as quickly as I solved this one.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I tried watching Downsizing, couldn't go past the 15 minute mark due to the atrocious dialogue. I also watched a few movies but none of the ones I hadn't already seen were particularly amazing

Batman Begins 5/10
The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water 4.5/10, it has quite a few fun moments but a lot of it felt like q regular episode that went for too long and the live action scenes weren't great (but I've never been a fan of that pirate guy)
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword 6/10, an unusual take on a familiar tale, quite interesting and generally fun despite some clear issues
Mute 5/10, really cool looking, some interesting characters, and a few fun scenes, but the "main" plot is fairly mediocre and generic below the shiny surface
Coffee and Kareem: 5/10
Spirited Away 6/10
Toy Story 3 (rewatched)

To most people your rating here is probably sacrilege, but I agree with you here. It's animation is incredible, as is the creativity but it's narrative is just so confusing and vague. Honestly, I tend to think that way about most Studio Ghibli films with some exceptions like 'Castle in the Sky' and 'Ponyo' which are much simpler stories.

And I talked about 'Downsizing' before, I was with it right until they introduce a Vietnamese woman and the movie forgets about its science-fiction premise. It's a shame because Alexander Payne is one of my favorite directors. It was a disappointment.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I got a few more:

Michael Clayton: I saw this for the first time, and it was fine. It came off like a lesser David Fincher thriller. I really don't have much to say about it (weird, I know).

Beaks: A low budget, boring-ass Mexican-Italian 'The Birds' ripoff. It was yet another bad movie that I was hoping would deliver on having entertainingly bad moments, but was ultimately just dull. It was also kind of distressing to watch since you saw the birds in question (mostly pigeons in this case, by the way, which are nowhere near as intimidating as the ones in the Hitchcock movie) being abused, injured, and shot for real. It's horrible! Though I think the birds in 'The Birds' did the same thing. But at least Hitchcock knew how to shoot the movie so that I was still thinking of our human characters instead of how badly I feel for the birds. Watch 'Birdemic: Shock and Terror' instead. I think it's slightly overrated as far as good-bad movies go, but it is still worth seeing and getting some laughs out of it.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood: I tend to find most Hollywood biopics fairly forgettable if they don't add something new to the typical formula. Thankfully this one did with cute little models of the cities that the movie takes place and even going as far as to film a somewhat surreal dream sequence. And of course, it's impossible to dislike Tom Hanks, one of the most likable people in the world, playing another of the most likable people who ever lived, Fred Rogers. Hanks only slightly looked like Rogers, and only slightly sounded like him but I was surprised to have still bought him as someone so iconic. Maybe it was entirely because of that inherent charm, or maybe it's because Hanks did actually seem to nail the mannerisms. Interestingly, he also kind of reminded me of a benevolent Hannibal Lecter with how he tries to learn about others' psychology.

 Obviously Hanks is the core of the film, but the conflict with the journalist and how Rogers tries to help him through some internal strife, while nothing particularly new or ground-breaking in biopics, still managed to be heartwarming and moving. Sometimes it went a little too far though, there was quite a bit of schmaltz in the film that became a bit too much for me at times. Also the entire movie's narrative needs to be taken with a grain of salt as far as being "a true story," as with most biopics, and in that sense it might feel a bit manipulative. It's another problem I have with most biopics.

 In spite of all that, I just couldn't help but fall for the movie's heart-tugging. I got really misty eyed in parts, though I wasn't all-out bawling like I was from one of my favorite documentaries of the last decade: 'Won't You Be My Neighbor?' about Fred Rogers and his life. What can I say? I'm a sucker for Mr. Rogers, as most cynical adults who grew up with his show probably are. It's probably why he's having a renaissance (a Rogerssaince?) of sorts right now. The world needs Mr. Rogers more than ever it seems, yet we can never have him back outside of our memories of him. He is like the anti-Donald Trump, who I would declare as the symbol of our miserable time; with how altruistic, empathetic, self-aware, and thoughtful he is in comparison to the current President. They're both interesting companion pieces though, I recommend watching them both back-to-back, if you can, especially because the biopic outright remakes some moments from the documentary and adds to it. Though I think I prefer the documentary overall.

[Progressive Pessimist]

How dare you criticize one of Meryl's brilliant works.

Mamma Mia! was one of the most egregious cases of anti-Meryl bias that dominates the industry and makes her so criminally underrated. One of the 50 or so movies I would just watch again-and-again before my post-March 15 experimentation sessions. If you don't tear up with her skills on "The Winner Takes It All" then you have no soul.

(Of course, it's even better on Broadway! That goes without saying and cannot be pinned on Meryl. She does her best to help me relive those memories.)

Meryl Streep is an incredibly talented woman who can do just about anything...except sing, at least then. She got better in other musicals I've seen her in since though. I'm sorry but between her and Pierce Brosnan both being terrible singers, the lack of a real story, annoying characters, and way too many songs- 'Mamma Mia!' is one of my least favorite movies ever and reminds me of why I tend to dislike most musicals.

If it makes you feel better though, the sequel, 'Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again!' is a lot better for reasons I can't really figure out. Maybe it's because it has an actual plot and some character development even as the songs are still pointless. Though the singing overall is way better too, even from Brosnan and Streep, and especially Lily James who is pretty much the de facto main character here. My friend and his girlfriend made me watch it when I was hanging out with them one day, much to my chagrin, but I was surprised at how much better it was than the first one. Don't get me wrong though, it's still not fantastic or anything, but it's watchable and entertaining enough. Maybe I'm just not a big enough Abba fan to really enjoy these films.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I despised the sequel, one of the worst movies ever in spite of my endless love for Cher. I know the first is done comically and is not genuinely great, but the Broadway nostalgia probably only helps it. The music is very uninteresting in the sequel except for Waterloo.

Eh, I'm not like devotedly defensive of the sequel, I can understand that. But clearly we have two vastly diverging opinions on this franchise as a whole.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Town that Dreaded Sundown: a 1970's exploitation film about the real-life Texarkana phantom killer that is supposedly considered one of the first slasher movies ever and was popular at drive-ins at the time. There is a reason that it isn't considered a classic like 'Halloween' or 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' though and that's due to some really distracting dubbing of dialogue, bad shooting of the death scenes that could have otherwise been scary, some bad comedy that muddles the film's tone, and numerous goofs like seeing cameramen in the background. It could have been good under a better director, especially considering how scary the killer looks. He wears this sack over his head and apparently inspired Jason Voorhees' look from the second 'Friday the Thirteenth' movie. When I learned that it was directed by the guy responsible for the 'Boggy Creek' series (which I know of from 'Mystery Science Theater 3000') it all made sense why this fell short.

Shakma: the world's least intimidating baboon that underwent animal testing that made him more aggressive (for some reason) ripping apart LARPing medical students in a tower who are playing a game hosted by their professor, Roddy McDowell. No, that isn't a madlib. That's this movie. Sadly it's duller than it sounds, I didn't hate it though. But what I did hate was one character named Bradley who has the most irritating delivery of lines I think I have ever heard. Everything he says is delivered in a way that makes him sound like he is attempting a stereotypical gay male voice combined with what sounds like he's having phone sex. Everything is said very breathily, nasally, and slowly while also loudly chewing gum, and every time he came on screen and talked I wanted him to die. Thankfully he is the first one that Shakma the baboon kills. I have never been so satisified with a character dying on screen. By the way, the attack scenes are poorly shot here too. I was actually kind of surprised at how this movie didn't pull any punches though. One would expect that the main hero's love interest and the innocent teenage friend wouldn't be killed-off, but they were! leaving him as the only one left who is implied to die anyway after the final confrontation. It was an oddly effective surprise, I'll give it that. And I didn't warn you about spoilers because there's no way you're like me an seek out B-movie schlock like this.

Tiptoes: I have heard so much about this movie and its infamy and while I can't quite say that it lives up to expectations it is truly an oddity. What would otherwise be a generic romantic comedy-drama with a positive message about showing little people as everyday, ordinary people is kneecapped by many peculiar choices and a sloppy, unsatisfying script.

 I highly doubt that the director (who actually went on to renounce the film after his cut was rejected by its producers) was an actual little person who understood how to write characters with that condition because everything in this movie just rings hollow. For instance, there's a subplot about Peter Dinklage, (who should have been cast in Gary Oldman's role, but I'll get to that) who is French for some reason, and Patricia Arquette playing an unexplainably weird character (seriously I can't describe what she is exactly supposed to be) being in a relationship that ultimately adds nothing to the plot and goes nowhere. It was probably meant as a way of showing that little people can have relationships with normal-sized people, both good and bad, which is a fine message but just distracts from the main pot which already sort of explores that theme.

The main plot involves Matthew McConaughey and Kate Beckinsale having a child out of wedlock and grappling with the fact that their child could suffer from dwarfism which is part of McConaughey's genetic makeup as his parents and twin brother (played by Gary Oldman, who is eleven years older!) are all little people. That's actually a decent premise but then the details rise to the surface and make it truly incompetent. For one thing, McConaughey has somehow never told Beckinsale about his family after being together for long enough to be engaged and then she finally ends up meeting the brother and learning of the family's secret. From then on the movie just goes all over the place, I am almost struggling to describe it like with the apparent implication that McConaughey is cheating on Beckinsale only for that to never come up again after the next scene. There is just a lot of "what?" and "why?" moments in this movie that never seem to register until you're done watching it. One weird moment that bothered the s*** out of me was after Beckinsale takes a pregnancy test and then awaits the results in her kitchen while the test rests on top of her damn coffee mug! Ew! What the f***? Why not just have her read it in the bathroom? I really don't know with this movie.

I have to address the casting controversy though of the 5'11'' Gary Oldman being cast as a little person. I don't think it would have been as upsetting to people if it was executed better, especially since this movie has a very large and inclusive cast of little person actors in many roles. In fairness, Oldman captures a couple small idiosyncrasies of how little people move while also delivering a decent performance, as would be expected out of an actor like him, but to make him look like a little person they just have him walk on his knees and stuffed what might as well be a throw pillow in his shirt to give him a humpback. When he sits on a couch they also have very obvious fake legs in place of where his real ones should be. The only time it looks convincing is with distant shots of the back of him and such where an actual little person stand-in is used instead. It's just jarring and a truly bizarre casting choice, especially with so many other little people already cast in it and also for supposedly being McCounaghey's twin brother yet being visibly much older. Oldman might be of more blame though than initially thought, apparently he was a major factor in getting this movie made due to an apparent want to play a little person. I think though that it was all just a big scheme so he would get to make out with Kate Beckinsale. I can't say that I blame him though because I had forgotten how damn attractive she is until watching this movie (sorry to sound so shallow but oh my god is she hot! even with some truly weird hairstyles and outfits in this film). And in the interest of balance, McConaughey gets shirtless many times and even wears tight fitting briefs in some scenes. So there's titillation for female audiences too.

I wish this movie was better though because little people probably deserve more visibility in films, especially with how few there are that are actually about them that aren't exploitative. I wouldn't mind seeing a film like this made by a competent little person, or even someone with general expertise on the subject, instead. It's another film that didn't have to be as mediocre as it ended up being.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Updated list of films we watched since my last post (how I grade the film):

- Escape Plan (A, Ahnuld was great)
- The Highwaymen (A-)
- Indecent Proposal (A-)
- On the basis of Sex (A, great film about Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
- Traning Day (B+, Denzel Washington was great, the story medicore)
- The Bone Collector (A-)
- 12 Monkeys (C+, the end was very unsatisfactory)
- Seven (A, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Brad Pitt is a huge combo)
- Bridge of Spies (A)
- Primal Fear (A-)
- Rush Hour, Rush Hour II & III (A, Jackie Chan is great)
- Gangster Squad (A)
- USS Indianapolis (A-)
- Poseidon (A-, great story and effects, but too many died for my taste)

- Mr. Brooks (A+, honestly one of the very best films I've ever seen. Kevin Costner playing a successful businessman who is (secretly) a cumpulsive murderer. As such, he outsmarts everybody, including a Detective plyed by Demi Moore).


Looking forward to The Equalizer 2, to be released on Netflix next week. The first part was one of the best films I've ever seen).

I would give 'Training Day' the same score, but my issue with the film is the massive, unbelievable coincidence that occurs with the latino gangsters and how stereotypical and lacking in subtlety they are. That really took me out of the movie. So I guess that falls within your "mediocre story" criticism, though that's really the only part of the story I had a big problem with.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Mother!' is a real oddity, even as far as Aronofsky films go. I still can't quite articulate my thoughts on it. I neither hated nor liked it, and I wouldn't even say it was "meh" or "okay."

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've been rewatching 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' lately, so I haven't seen too many movies recently. But sometimes I'll record movies I have never seen before on my cable DVR if I see thy are going to air, and come back to them at times. One such movie was 'Catch Me if You Can.'

It was fine. Everything was fine. It was a fairly serviceable biopic about a mildly interesting individual, but not something that is going to stick with me. Check fraud can only be made so interesting. I guess John Williams' score stuck out a bit, it's different from his usual ones. And I guess I won't forget the absurdity of Leonardo DiCaprio's (who was also fine, but not particularly spectacular) character escaping from an airplane through the toilet too. There was no explanation provided.

Perhaps I'll also talk about 'Beasts of No Nation' which was the last movie I watched on Netflix before returning my cozy 'Avatar' rabbit hole. I saw this movie when it first came out in 2015 and for some reason decided to re-watch it in spite of how depressing and grim it is. I wish it caught on more because I think it's one of the best movies of the 2010's. It's certainly one of the most underrated at least, mainly because it was also the very first Netflix produced feature film, and for that reason it wasn't nominated for too many awards. It's a really f***ed up loss-of-innocence story, basically, about a young African boy who has to join a child soldier army to survive in the midst of his (unnamed) country's brutal civil war. I know, it doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, and it kind of isn't. As I said, it's extremely bleak but within that there is a lot of beauty too. It's one of the most brilliantly shot movies I have ever seen and it succeeds at almost everything else it does as well to me with Idris Elba being one of the biggest of the movie's standouts. He should have been nominated for his performance here. His performance and his character of The Commandant are very compelling. I don't have a single flaw with this movie. Well, okay, maybe there is the fact that watching it with subtitles is almost necessary. The movie is in English, but there are some very strong accents that you will need to deal with. That's not the movie's fault though, and actually probably enhances it even more. Give it a watch, but prepare yourself for some really heavy content.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I finally saw 'Jojo Rabbit' and there was a lot I liked about it: for on thing there is the fact that everyone actually attempted a German accent (even if they were terrible like Rebel Wilson's) in contrast to something like 'Valkyrie' where all the Nazis had either American or English accents which was just jarring. I liked that Nazi Germany was actually portrayed with warm, pastel colors that set this movie apart from other World War II films. I liked the pure weirdness of a coming-of-age dramedy set during one of the darkest times in human history which also featured an imaginary buffoonish Hitler. By the way, the marketing makes the film appear to be mostly about Jojo's relationship with imaginary Hitler, but it's more of a device used to portray Jojo's changing perspective on his nation during this time. It's kind of a gimmick more than anything, but the movie is about so much more than that.

So it sounds like I loved this movie, right? For some reason that I just can't put finger on, I came a bit short of loving it. I liked it a lot, but something about it just left me not feeling much and that's a tough admission since there are a lot of funny moments and even some really depressing moments. I did laugh and I did feel sad at one point, but in very middling ways. Maybe it's because of some very predictable moments that undercut all that? Maybe it's because of the fairly simplistic and obvious message that it shares with most World War II films? I mean, sure, it's an important message too that probably needs to be emphasized as much as ever in these current times, but I've seen it before far too many times. I just don't know what was preventing me from loving this movie. I would still definitely recommend this film for how unique it is though. Watch it yourself and perhaps you can help me identify why it was slightly less compelling than I wanted it to be.

That reminds me though of another Holocaust film I watched for the first time:'Sophie's Choice.' Obviously this film and its content is so famous that almost everyone knows what it's about-a "Sophie's Choice" has almost become a meme and part of our lexicon. So with that being all I knew about the film I was actually very surprised to find that the film was about more than that. It's mainly about a love triangle between Sophie, her unstable boyfriend, and our bland protagonist who is an aspiring Southern writer who moves to a Brooklyn apartment where Sophie and her boyfriend are his neighbors. And that aspect was thoroughly uninteresting to me. I kind of hated it. I get that it works within the themes of Sophie having yet another choice in her life, but her past in German occupied Poland is the real interesting part of the movie that I almost wish was just the movie in its entirety. The whole love triangle reminded me of 'Cabaret's,' and I hate 'Cabaret!' Here at least there weren't pointless songs, and Meryl Streep is truly phenomenal in the role here. It lives up to everything I've heard about it and serves as a reminder of why she is regarded as such a legendary actress. I may not know a perfect Polish accent when I hear one, but she seemed to nail that and the emotions of her character to the nines. She is easily the best part of this film and elevated it over 'Cabaret' even as I still found it somewhat disappointing and losing my interest at times.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Oh boy! This thread is back! I haven't actually watched that many new movies since my last post, I've been watching 'Primal' and re-watching 'The Legend of Korra'  lately. And you all might be relieved to see that I actually don't have much to say about these two films that I have seen recently:

-'Birds of Prey' (it should have been titled 'Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey'): DC's fourth best movie, that's still not saying much though. It's infinitely better than the movie it's a sequel to though: 'Suicide Squad.' It shares one flaw with that movie where the soundtrack was kind of bad and distracting with all the pop songs they used. The only other thing I can really say about it is that it was the Harley Quinn show and was decent when that's what was happening, the Birds of Prey got in the way and honestly weren't really that necessary. Ewan McGregor stole the movie for me, as usual. I just love that guy. Also I am so sick of these R-rated comic book movies using the same template of our antihero bonding with a child being central to the story. Seriously, it's happened three times with 'Logan,' 'Deadpool 2,' and now this. And I am mixed to negative on all of them. This type of story has got to go, it's getting old and never works for me! Oddly I think I hate 'Logan' the most of these three since it takes itself much more seriously than the other two.

-'Munich': I saw it for the first time. It's another lesser Spielberg movies that was fine but honestly ended up being very forgettable. Seriously, I don't remember much about it other than the fact that I think a movie about the actual Munich hostage situation would have been more interesting than the movie we got about its aftermath.

However, 'Cats' is premiering on HBO next week! I have it recorded. I am so excited to watch this nightmare!

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's close enough to Christmas that I think I can watch Die Hard. Watch it every year.

F*** yes! Though I can watch it anytime it's on, but it's part of my Christmas movie trifecta of the three films I always watch at this time of year: 'Die Hard,' 'Gremlins,' and 'Jingle All the Way' (a bad film but one that is underrated in how absurd and ridiculous it is. I love it!).

And yes, 'Die Hard' is a Christmas movie. As far as I'm concerned as long as Christmas factors into a movie's plot, it can be considered one.

[Progressive Pessimist]

^'Watership Down' is great, as f**ed up as it is for an animated movie about rabbits. If you liked it though might I recommend 'Plague Dogs' as well if you like incredibly dark British movies about animals. 'Plague Dogs' is even darker though, it will ruin your day if you watch it. It's still good though.

Then there's 'Felidae,' which is a German made film noir, with a version dubbed in English, about a cat trying to solve the mystery behind murders of other cats in a neighborhood he and his owner move to. This one is explicitly an R-rated movie though featuring cat sex, graphic gore, and themes of eugenics and genocide. Give it a watch! It's kind of nuts!

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Gretel and Hansel:' From the director of the superior  'Blackcoat's Daughter' and inferior 'I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House' but is just as slow as both comes a film that is also as visually striking as his other two. The cinematography and production design steal this movie! It's one of the most atmospheric, coolest looking takes on a Grimms' fairy tale I have ever seen. It's a perfect Halloween movie. The score is excellent too. It's a weird synth sort of sound, reminiscent of 'A Clockwork Orange' to me, which is different from the typical dark folk horror scores you get, but actually works very well.

I would recommend it to audiences interested in an efficiently creepy, surprisingly graphic for a PG-13 (even though there is no direct physical bloodshed there is some major gross-out stuff in this movie. I don't know how it didn't get an R rating), slow-burn movie. A lot of complaints about it seem to revolve around how slow it is, but I actually prefer slow horror films that build themselves up. Anyway there are plenty of consistently eerie moments to keep you engaged throughout.

My real qualms with the film involve its somewhat muddled story, some awkward and odd dialogue, some unnecessaey voice-over narration, and the two siblings having completely different accents (it being a fantasy movie I can get past there being no unifying dialect among the characters, but when they're siblings it's a bit distracting to me). Don't expect it to be a very close adaptation of the Hansel and Gretel story you already know, of course. There a few neat twists and even a few omissions from the conventional version of it. For instance, the house isn't made of candy, our protagonists are several years apart instead of twins, and there are no breadcrumbs. Still though, if you can get past that and every other somewhat  minor flaw I mentioned, it's probably worth a watch.

'One Night in Miami:' This move has been receiving a lot of buzz, especially for awards season. It definitely deserves it, and having a black female first-time director, Oscar winning actress Regina King, it's probably a shoo-in to at least be nominated for a lot. And for a directional debut, it's pretty impressive. But I can't say that I was quite as enchanted with it. Don't get me wrong, it's a very well-made, very well-acted movie and I still liked it a lot, but in being adapted from a play it felt way too much like one for me. The whole movie was basically our four main characters talking about their roles as prominent, powerful black men in the civil rights movement and cultural upheaval of the 1960's for black Americans. Our characters being Jim Brown (who has the least to do in the movie, I don't even think he should have really been there. He gets maybe two important moments in the film-though they are two of the movie's best moments in my opinion), Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali,  Sam Cooke, and Malcolm X-four legends in black history and American history overall too. This isn't a true story, but could conceivably have been a real event since all four knew each other and relate to each other. Nobody should go into this movie thinking it did actually happen.

Maybe it's because I'm white and am a bit more disconnected, but these four, admittedly interesting, characters just hanging out and talking in a hotel room for the majority of the film just didn't really resonate with me. I feel like the film should have built up to something like the deaths of either Cooke or Malcolm X, but the only real conflict is in our characters' disagreements with each other. Much of what they talked about did resonate with me though; there are a lot of important, interesting, and still relevant discussions and debates that occur. But it felt more like an episode of a political talk show than a movie to me. I might be exaggerating a bit, there is definitely more of a heart to it than that. As unnatural as some of the dialogue came across when they were debating their interactions in other circumstances at least felt natural and that puts this adaptation above other drawing room play film adaptations. But as I said before, it seems like something that works better as a play still and I just don't tend to care for those adapted to film like 'August Osage COunty,' 'Glengarry Glen Ross,' or 'The Importance of Being Earnest.' 'Twelve Angry Men' is excepted though. I do love that one.

I would still recommend the film overall in spite of having some issues with its structure and format. It's especially going to appeal to anyone who appreciates these four figures, is interested in black history, or does like drawing room plays. I don't think it's for everybody though, very casual viewers might react to it with some apathy, especially with its nearly 2 hour run time.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I watched a few movies recently, I'll try to keep my opinions on them relatively short. But before that let me suggest to all my fellow Jewish posters to start making the act of watching 'Uncut Gems' part of your Passover tradition. That gives us at least two potential Passover movies now! We can make a real movie night of it alongside your Exodus/Moses adaptation of choice (for me it's the Rugrats Passover special), or even all of them!

But I digress:

-Coming to America: I have seen this movie before, but not since I was very young. For some reason I was allowed to watch this R-rated movie (though honestly, it's probably the softest R possible, especially on cable TV where I probably saw it). I have little memory of familiarity of it aside from a few aspects of it that have been referenced elsewhere. So with the sequel (which I have zero interest in seeing) being recently released I decided to watch the original once more.

It was fine. There were some funny moments,-nothing too laugh-out-loud hilarious though-and I appreciate that it was a very rare successful mainstream movie with a majority black cast. But overall, it was just kind of a middle-of-the-road comedy with a very cliched, predictable, and uninteresting love story being central to it. I'm sorry but Prince Akeem and Lisa were boring as f***. I'm sorry. How do you make Eddie Murphy boring? Even in his worst movies you understand why the guy was the star that he was! I mean sure, he got his start portraying multiple characters in this same movie which he did to excellent effect, as obvious as the makeup was, but they aren't the supposed anchor of the film. Akeem is too perfect and too nice to be interesting. I also think the movie underutilized the fish-out-water concept, especially in New York City which is a location that should deliver a lot on that. Also the movie was just very slow to top it all off. Usually I can tolerate a slow paced movie when it promises horror, suspense, or thrills but when it's comedy it just wears on my patience. It's no wonder the sequel has gotten lackluster reviews. It's always hard to recapture the magic of an accidentally successful movie, but it's even harder when there really isn't much magic in the first one to begin with. I know I might be sitting at a table for one here with this response, but that's just what I got out of it.

-Dark Waters: Another movie that was perfectly passable in just about every way. It's basically 'Erin Brockovich' 2.0. That said, the environmental threat in this movie is more far-reaching and disturbing. It details a former corporate attorney's legal challenges against DuPont Chemicals for basically contaminating the entire Earth with PFOA chemicals which are found in 99% of all living beings' blood and can lead to certain cancers and other horrific diseases. That's more what I got out of the movie than as a piece of entertainment. It had an important message but the narrative is nothing I haven't seen before. It doesn't end on a particularly happy note like other legal thrillers (it's actually almost a horror movie) on the one hand, so perhaps that's something noteworthy, though it was also kind of anticlimactic.

By the way, what's with Mark Ruffalo appearing in movies involving the DuPont family? There's this and then there's 'Foxcatcher,' which I kind of prefer.

-Santa Claus and the Ice Cream Bunny: This is the absolute worst Christmas movie ever! No contest! It's a low budget movie about Santa Claus' sleigh getting stuck in the sand on a South Florida beach the day before Christmas and his reindeer abandoning him (this is also almost a horror movie because that premise sounds like Hell to me) and then compelling a gaggle of children in a one mile radius or so, through song, to help him out of it by bringing various animals (including a guy in a gorilla suit which I broke into hysterics over. there's something about guys in cheap gorilla outfits that always makes me laugh)) to try and move the sleigh.

That's the first agonizingly boring half hour of the movie-just a constant montage of animals failing to move the sleigh which is also pretty uncomfortable to watch because it almost seems cruel to watch these children push and drag the animals around to try and make them do what the movie needed. Then in order to inspire the kids after all their failure he tells the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" and it cuts to an atrocious micro-budget, 1970's fashion filled version of the story being portrayed very obviously in a theater setting as footage of a play being reused to pad the running time of the movie. In fact, this segment is longer than the Santa plot. It features even more awful songs to boot! And every f***ing member of the cast gets a damn song from Jack to the salesman to the Giant who sings about how he smells the blood of an Englishman and then proceeds to do nothing but sit there and let Jack steal his s***. Though it is funny when a bottom dollar dummy of the Giant falls off the beanstalk. I guess I lucked out in the end because there is another version of the movie that has a cheap "Thumbelina" play in its place that is supposedly even longer and more boring!

After that "inspiration" the kids' dog recruits "The Ice Cream Bunny" ( a guy in a cheap bunny costume who doesn't talk and whose name is never explained) to rescue Santa in his fire truck. Who is the Ice Cream Bunny and what makes him special? How does that fire truck make difference in taking him to the North Pole compared to any other vehicle? Why does Santa's sleigh just disappear when he leaves with the bunny? Why is the audio so bad when the kids are singing their song about how they and the Ice Cream Bunny are going to save Santa? Why was Santa even flying around in his sleigh well before Christmas? Who made this movie and why? Why am I even bothering to ask all these questions? Well, it all happened. I watched it.

-The Ice Cream Man: Another movie with "ice cream" in the title! This somewhat famous B horror movie involves Clint Howard as a homicidal ice cream man but is simultaneously more interesting and confusing than that simple premise suggests. The movie can't seem to decide if the ice cream man, Greg, is supposed to be sympathetic or not. There are scenes which suggests that while he is a killer, he only kills bad people like a creepy, borderline pedophilic, park worker who intimidates our main kids early in the movie. He is also portrayed as being victimized by the police who destroy his warehouse in searching for evidence to implicate him. And he is also shown being friendly and warm to one of our kid protagonists. But then in the end he just ends up being a cold (pun not intended), sociopathic murderer who blends his victims' flesh and bones into his ice cream, made that way from his stay at a mental institution as a kid, or something?

But the protagonists are the kids and this flick seems to try and make them into something like 'The Goonies' or 'Monster Squad'-solving mysteries and riding around on their bikes, but none of them have anything to set them all apart other than the obligatory "fat" kid who is just an average looking kid with a pillow stuffed down his shirt. I s*** you not.

There's also a bunch of other pointless subplots to the film like an apparent romantic interest to Greg in the form of the neighborhood floozy, but I won't go into those. I will however detail the baffling decision to have the absolutely beautiful actress, Olivia Hussey (of 1968's 'Romeo and Juliet' and the original 'Black Christmas' fame), portray a kooky old lady-the former nurse who took of Greg in the hospital and is now his landlady-even though she was in her late thirties at the time this movie was filmed. She's having fun though hamming it up and probably being one of the few actors not to take this movie all that seriously.

I sort of recommend it even though it's far from my favorite bad movies. It will also make you want to eat ice cream, even when the ice cream is being shown to have cockroaches, human eyes, and rats in it.

-Who Killed Captain Alex: This film is becoming somewhat more mainstream as a "so bad, it's good" movie out of "Wakaliwood," a movie studio in Uganda that makes their movies, including this one, for less than $200 USD. The movie itself is a fairly conventional, weakly plotted action film about the Ugandan military commandos (take a drink every time that word is said if you want to die) led by Captain Alex (you never actually find out who kills him even though that's supposedly the movie's premise) fighting against a drug gang. It would actually be really boring, as cute as it is in being so cheap and sincere, if it wasn't for our "VJ," Emi- a guy who narrates and commentates over the film and even delivers some of the characters' lines. He makes the f***ing movie, which is bad but in not in any particularly intriguing way, so much better and is constantly hilarious from outright making fun of the movies' characters, talking s*** about Nigerian movies, and speaking directly to the audience about how great the movie is and how much action there is and going to be. Also of note are the bizarre inclusions of bad instrumental covers of famous music like Seal's "Kiss from a Rose." I also can't overlook a bad CGI helicopter that shows up.

Even though it isn't quite the funniest bad movie I have ever seen, it is probably the most endearing. For these Ugandans to get together and manage to make a somewhat competent (by the standards of costing between $80 and $200) action film is really inspiring and there is such an innocence to it that put a smile on my face throughout it's run. Everybody did their absolute best and seemed to have fun doing it. Hell, the movie even ends with a song dedicated to the director's mom and grandma and how much he appreciates them for what they did for him all his life. It's just so adorable and sweet, even though this song too is actually pretty bad. I actually recommend it to anyone even slightly interested in it. You can find it on Youtube in full. But if that's too much for you, at least give the trailer a watch, because that is even pretty great in itself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BymeLkZ7GqM

WALALA! ACTION!

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's been awhile since I posted here. Needless to say, I've watched quite a bunch of movies since I last posted. I'm not going to go too in-depth on too many of them, for once...or I'll try, at least:

-The Founder: I rewatched this one recently, and it's one of the most underrated biopics I've ever seen. I tend to not like conventional biopics, and while this one may strike some as conventional, I was just so enthralled with Michael Keaton's portrayal of Ray Kroc, and the character himself. The best biopics, to me, involve figures who border on being villains much like 'The Social Network.' Whether the portrayal is accurate or not, they are just so much fun to watch. Kroc in the film is one of those figures who can't help himself but to acquire what he wants, even if its at the expense of others, which it almost always is. For all those reasons I love this movie and recommend people give it a watch. It's also a very informative and intriguing insight into the rise of one of the biggest fast food empires on Earth, if not the biggest, certainly the most famous. Again though, that assumes it's accurate, which it might not be. Even the most on-point biopics usually have to dramatize some things. Sometimes that gets on my nerves, but here I was able to forgive it and take it as a film. It's also notable for being a movie that was first released around the time of Trump's inauguration, because this character reminded me a lot of Trump and his rise to the presidency. In that sense, this film also might be an ominous cautionary tale about what happens when people trust men whose biggest asset is their confidence and audacity. It's kind of scary.

-Good Burger: After watching 'The Founder' again I decided to revisit this childhood "classic" also involving fast food. It's terrible, but I still kind of like it, and not just because of nostalgia. I still actually found it enjoyable since, even though it's dumb as f***, so much of that dumbness is completely bonkers that i can appreciate more as an adult. Like Ed almost dragging a girl to her death, a baby being thrown through a basketball hoop, talking hamburgers, a teacher who is also a 1960's-esque blaxploitation character, being able to commit people to a mental asylum solely because you know someone who works there, exploding hamburgers, sexual innuendo, a woman who looks exactly like our lead male character, Abe Vigoda, Shaq and his inability to deliver lines, and more! That's just scratching the surface. What kind of f***ed up universe does this movie take place in!? I recommend anyone else who grew up with 90's Nickelodeon to revisit this film too. Hell, get high and watch it.

-Ordinary People: I saw this one for the second time. I really shouldn't watch this movie because I identify too much with it and with Timothy Hutton's character, even though the things I have grief and regrets about are nowhere near as significant as what Hutton's character goes through in this film. I love this movie, probably because I enjoy torturing myself. It makes me cry every time.

-Manchester By the Sea: Being in a grief film mood, I watched this one after 'Ordinary People,' also for the second time. My first time watching it something was off about it. I liked it, but I felt that some of its emotional moments fell flat even while still finding it completely depressing and emotionally draining. For instance, the flashback scene where the tragedy happens to Casey Affleck, when we learn about what actually happens, was done in a tell instead of show manner, and that dampened the impact to me. That happened a lot throughout the movie in how I responded to its content. Subtlety is often preferable to the opposite, but this film got a little too subtle for my tastes. And that unfortunately continued in watching it the second time for whatever reason. I can't quite put my finger on it, but for everything I've heard about this being one of the saddest films ever, I would agree, but it never evoked more than a "that sucks" from me. I didn't cry at it either time, and I'm one of those who cries at movies all the time, as seen in the above entry. I also can't help but find the main character's interactions with his nephew as being less interesting than him going through his grief. I get the purpose of him becoming his nephew's guardian, but the scenes involving all that left me feeling a bit blase compared to the flashbacks about Affleck's character going through an unspeakably awful time. I do appreciate how real the move feels though. People talk realistically, interrupt each other, and act like one would in real-life. The performances are great too. It's a fine movie overall, just not really worth all the hype it got back when it was released as far as I'm concerned.

-Bad Trip: I love 'The Eric Andre Show' and its dark, surreal hidden camera humor; and with this feature film of his we get that for 90 minutes, but perhaps in a little more broad fashion than the absurdity of the show. It follows in the vein of road trip mockumentaries like 'Bad Grandpa' or 'Borat,' but even more so it borrows from 'Dumb and Dumber'...literally. There are moments that feel like complete rip-offs from the film rather than just inspiration. It was very distracting to me in spite of still enjoying the film and some moments from it. Knock-off baggage aside, I would still consider this a lesser, more forgettable, entry into the mockumentary road trip, buddy genre. I still have to see 'The Impractical Jokers Movie' so when I do, we'll see how the ranking changes or doesn't. I still recommend it though for those moments where I did get some really genuine belly laughs out of it.


-Sunset Boulevard: I saw this movie for the first time ever recently. I liked it a lot, but don't really have much to say about it other than having a better understanding of why Trump loves it so much-whether he knows it or not, he basically is the living embodiment of Norma Desmond. And yes, I'm sorry for bringing Trump up again, but he's such a "reality is stranger than fiction" sort of person, that one can't help but be reminded of him while watching eccentric characters on screen. I guess I also have a better understanding of why David Lynch loves it so much and references it in a lot of his work.


-Some Like it Hot: Another film by the director of 'Sunset Boulevard,' I saw this movie parts before, but never in its entirety. It surprisingly holds up for a movie about men in drag taking place in the 1920's. It's still funny, and not all that poorly aged when it comes to its jokes...well, maybe with the exception of the "why would a man want to marry another man" line. I also enjoyed that the movie, which prominently featured Tony Curtis deceiving Marilyn Monroe's character, never reached the point of the two of them having a falling-out when Curtis is revealed to be her new friend and not the man he was making himself out to be. I don't think it's realistic, but that made it a refreshing outlier from a typical, and annoying, romantic comedy cliche. Even though this movie ends up becoming a romantic comedy, a genre which I typically hate, it distinguished itself enough from it that I enjoyed it and would put it among the top movies ever in that genre. Though I must say that the ending was a bit too abrupt and unsatisfying for me. Sure, it ends on a funny, and famous line, but I wanted just a little more.


-The Odd Couple: Finally, we have another Jack Lemmon movie. This movie kind of has a ubiquitous place in popular culture where even if you haven't seen it, you know about it. Felix and Oscar as archetypes of characters and even real-life people being compared to them, is hard to avoid and in my life it's been especially relevant. All my life I've identified with Felix Unger even before seeing this movie in its entirety very recently. All my life, my mom would often refer to me as "Felix" for my persnickety, detail-oriented nature and obsessive need to tidy up...a "clean freak," if you will. Meanwhile, my sister is the opposite, being very absent-minded and messy who she would call "Oscar." The movie obviously reflects this but makes the characters more three dimensional than I had always assumed. While their behaviors are a very large part of their being, there is more to them than just those aspects. And needless to say, I identified far too much with Felix Unger, even more than I expected. I don't know if I should be embarrassed of that or not. It's yet another comedy from fifty plus years ago that I would recommend and think aged pretty well and reinforces why these two men became such staples of popular culture...even though it was a tad darker than I expected. *Spoilers?* Like the movie opening with Felix contemplating suicide.

I watched this on May 5th

And I'm planning on re-watching this sooner or later

I gave a review of "Who Killed Captain Alex" a few pages back. I loved it! Especially the "VJ." WALALA! ACTION!

I would also recommend "B14" from Ghana. At least watch the trailer, it's a masterpiece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37C6f8s2JY