Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number

[kihei]

Let the Corpses Tan (2018) Directed by Bruno Forzani and Helene Cattet 4B

On picturesque hills overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, two groups of thugs double cross one another over a trunk load of gold bullion. Amid the sunlit ruins, an eccentric artist and her coterie get caught in the middle. Much mayhem follows. In fact, only mayhem follows. Directors Forzani and Cattet are famous for their artsy, post-modern approach--here they are having fun, if that is the right word, with giallo movies--a low budget genre of Italian crime movies, most popular in the '60s and '70s, that relied heavily on sex, violence and pulp fiction. Forzani and Cattet spend little time with the build up and just get right to the action which is all they seem really concerned with. Their approach ranges from the visually impressive and highly imaginative to stylized gross-outs (people get peed on more frequently than one might expect, and lots of attention has been paid to photogenic splatter effects). There are no real rooting interests and the movie just peters out as if the two directors' bright ideas didn't include an ending. Still, Let the Corpses Tan has tons of Midnight Madness potential. If you just want to see a lot of gore and violence, this baby should fill the bill. Don't expect anything else, though.

subtitles

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

In my continued half-assed quest to assorted horror films this month ...

Though I consider myself a horror fan, I haven't taken in a lot of the new stuff in the past decade or so, particularly any of the ones that have spawned ongoing series. I don't know my Conjurings from my Insidouses from my Sinsters. I don't know who The Nun is or where the Annabelle goes. I've tended to cherry pick the really well reviewed horror (It Follows, The Witch, Hereditary, etc.) and then go back to anything from the 1950s-2000s to get my true fix. Trying to rectify that a bit.

So I'd never seen a single minute of any of The Purge movies before. Concept always intrigued me. Just never sought it out. Finally tackled the first one. It's really a killer set-up. A high-minded twist on classic home invasion horror fare. Memorable creepy killers. Every single twist is predictable and I thought the kid's little robot was dumb. But competently acted (by the adults) and decently directed. I can see why the idea has spawned more. With four (I think) movies now and a TV series, I'm curious where this one ranks for fans.

I say half-assed, because (with a few exceptions) I haven't been seeking out specific movies. I'm just sitting on my rear, scanning the assorted streaming channels in front of my face, which leads me to Netflix with its big boom of horror. I wrote about Gerald's Game a few pages ago.

I also tackled The Ritual. Tragedy strikes a group of British buddies and spurs them to take a backpacking vacation in Sweden. Are there scary woods? Yep. Do they decide they need to take a shortcut through said scary woods? You bet! You get a little Blair Witchiness here, a little Wicker Manniness there, but it's an effective cocktail. Rafe Spall is aces as the damaged protagonist. A pretty good sense of dread throughout. I was ok with the ending, but I wonder if others have issues.

I also took in Hold the Dark, which is probably more of a thriller if we want to be real pedantic, but definitely has some horror vibes and imagery throughout. I think director Jeremy Saulnier is a true talent. Big fan of his first two films, so was eager to dive into this. Geoffrey Wright is a wolf expert recruited by a young mother to come to Alaska to find the wolves that took her kid. Not sure why I even share that logline plot though because, to be honest, this story changes directions about three times in its first 40 minutes before it settles down into what it really is. There is a mystery here, but it isn't what you first expect. Great sense of place. Good acting, though everyone in the cast is super low-key and subdued. There's a fairly harrowing acting setpiece in the middle that's well done. I thought it was pretty solid though it's another one where the ending may make or break it for you.

 

[kihei]

The Old Man and the Gun (2018) Directed by David Lowery 5A

It's a shame that Robert Redford's last movie, assuming he retires as planned, is such a listless affair. The Old Man and the Gun is a character study of Forrest (Robert Redford), an old man who has robbed banks all his life and loves doing so. By nature he is easy going and charming, a happy person who tries to make his thefts as free from trauma as possible for everybody involved. Yes, he has a gun, no, he has never fired it in anger. He, his two post-retirement partners in crime (Danny Glover and Tom Waits), a woman roughly his age that he meets along the way (Sissy Spacek), and a dedicated but understanding cop (Casey Affleck) provide a full slate of interesting personalities. However, the script makes nothing of the considerable resources at hand. The pacing isn't just slow, it's geriatric--as a result there is no tension of any kind and surprisingly not even very much character development as director David Lowery never does manage to find a sense of purpose. The whole movie feels like a premature eulogy complete with pictures of the younger Redford interspersed in one scene as a means of showing his character's mugshots down through the ages. This parade of photos, though brief, plays like one of those maudlin Academy Award tributes to the recently departed. Throughout the movie, Redford turns on his still considerable charm which is all he really needs to do here--the role itself offers no challenges for him. Yet I don't have the heart to condemn the movie completely. The Old Man and the Gun serves as a reminder of what a fine, entertaining actor Redford is, one of the most likeable not to mention most handsome of all movie stars, and of how time inevitably has its way with us all. I wish he could have had a more deserving swan song, but The Old Man and the Gun is better than nothing.

 

[Jussi]

On another note, while I haven't seen the movie, I absolutely loathe films who make what appear to be wink wink nod nod to the audience by casting Lady Gaga in the lead role. Oh, making a story about a bar singer shooting up to stardom? Let's get Lady Gaga. GET IT? I find it so tired, hacky and distracting. It just feels like a gimmick lacking in creativity. I'm willing to bet there's a couple of obvious and not so obvious nods to Lady Gaga's life and career in the movie.

According to one review I watched bits of, there's apparently a somewhat awkward reference to the artist Lady Gaga(not in name but by action) about the visuals ruling over music.

 

[Puck]

The Old Man and the Gun (2018) Directed by David Lowery 5A

It's a shame that Robert Redford's last movie, assuming he retires as planned, is such a listless affair. The Old Man and the Gun is a character study of Forrest (Robert Redford), an old man who has robbed banks all his life and loves doing so. By nature he is easy going and charming, a happy person who tries to make his thefts as free from trauma as possible for everybody involved. Yes, he has a gun, no, he has never fired it in anger. He, his two post-retirement partners in crime (Danny Glover and Tom Waits), a woman roughly his age that he meets along the way (Sissy Spacek), and a dedicated but understanding cop (Casey Affleck) provide a full slate of interesting personalities. However, the script makes nothing of the considerable resources at hand. The pacing isn't just slow, it's geriatric--as a result there is no tension of any kind and surprisingly not even very much character development as director David Lowery never does manage to find a sense of purpose. The whole movie feels like a premature eulogy complete with pictures of the younger Redford interspersed in one scene as a means of showing his character's mugshots down through the ages. This parade of photos, though brief, plays like one of those maudlin Academy Award tributes to the recently departed. Throughout the movie, Redford turns on his still considerable charm which is all he really needs to do here--the role itself offers no challenges for him. Yet I don't have the heart to condemn the movie completely. The Old Man and the Gun serves as a reminder of what a fine, entertaining actor Redford is, one of the most likeable not to mention most handsome of all movie stars, and of how time inevitably has its way with us all. I wish he could have had a more deserving swan song, but The Old Man and the Gun is better than nothing.

Well I'll be damned. I never thought I'd see the day Kihei objected to slow-pace. Have you switched gears on us? There's nothing more slow-paced for instance than The Death of Louis XIV and you loved that one (not to mention a myriad others). You are the king of slow-pace Sundance love. I'm just kidding you man. I think I know the message you're conveying for this one. I just had to tease, it was too strong an urge to resist.

 

[Jevo]

It felt like All Is Lost would have been a perfect ending to Redford's career, but obviously he wasn't ready to call it quits then. And my, has it already been five years since All Is Lost came out? Feels it's just a short time ago.

 

[Jevo]

22 July (2018) dir. Paul Greengrass

Netflix just released the new movie by Paul Greengrass about Anders Behring Breivik, this is roughly how I imagine this movie came to be:

Paul Greengrass: I really want to make a movie about that Breivik guy in Norway.

Some Producer Guy: That's a great idea Paul, but how are going to fund this? I'm not sure we can get enough here in America.

PG: Try asking the Norwegians for money, I've heard they have so many.

SPG: They say they won't fund an American production, what do we do?

PG: What if we cast a bunch of Norwegian guys for the film?

SPG: That's a great idea Paul, they love it. But does this mean we have to do it in Elf language or whatever they speak over there?

PG: Of course not, we'll do it in English like we always intended. Elf language, what a joke!

In 2001 Anders Behring Breivik committed one of the most deadly acts of terrorism in Europe in recent years. He bombed the government quarters and attacked a summer camp for youth members of the Labour party, killing 77 in total. This movie chronicles not only the attacks, but also the aftermath for those involved. The movie is split in 2½ parts. One part for Breivik. One part for a young guy who just survived the gun shot wounds he suffered during the attack. And half a part for the Norwegian prime minister, who's in the movie, and the movie spends time focusing on that, but he never really does anything. At 2½ hours it's already a long film, and could have been reduced by cutting the prime minster role almost completely, without losing much at all. A big problem with this movie is that Breivik is by far the most interesting character in the film, but the film never allows it self to dig into him. Anders Danielsen Lie does an admirable job of trying to bring depth into his character, but it feels like he's being restrained by everything around him in that. Perhaps it was feared that making Breivik seem human, would make him seem attractive. It's just a shame that the rest of the characters in the film are just as shallow as Breivik, if not more. The movie opens up for more interesting alleys it could have explored. Such as Breivik's lawyer, a proud and active member of the Labour party himself, getting death threats on his home number for being "nazi scum", but that whole subplot only lasted for a single short scene.

All in all 22 July is too long, doesn't dare to dig into it's characters, or maybe it just doesn't have much to say. Since it's a Paul Greengrass movie, one of the best things I can say about it is that camera crew wasn't hit by severe sudden onset Parkinson's Disease. The movie, despite being generally competently made, is simply mediocre in most of its endeavours.

 

[kihei]

Well I'll be damned. I never thought I'd see the day Kihei objected to slow-pace. Have you switched gears on us? There's nothing more slow-paced for instance than The Death of Louis XIV and you loved that one (not to mention a myriad others). You are the king of slow-pace Sundance love. I'm just kidding you man. I think I know the message you're conveying for this one. I just had to tease, it was too strong an urge to resist.

Actually Sundance movies usually drive me nuts. To pigeonhole myself, I'm more an Asian/Euro guy, definitely not a Sundance guy (with exceptions, of course).

As for the slow pace issue, there is slow pace as done by the Serras, Antonionis, Viscontis, Tarkovskys, Ceylans, and Tarrs, et al, of the world, and then there is slow pace by directors who seem to want to dawdle but don't have anything much at all to say or show. A good invidious comparison with The Old Man and the Gun would be Manchester by the Sea, a movie that is also leisurely paced but in which the director, Kenneth Lonergan, fills up his canvas with details that we need to know about the central characters. Manchester by the Sea builds; it gets richer and more detailed; it goes somewhere. The Old Man and the Gun just lies there like a dead flounder.

 

[Puck]

Actually Sundance movies usually drive me nuts. To pigeonhole myself, I'm more an Asian/Euro guy, definitely not a Sundance guy (with exceptions, of course).

As for the slow pace issue, there is slow pace as done by the Serras, Antonionis, Viscontis, s, Ceylans, and Tarrs, et al, of the world, and then there is slow pace by directors who seem to want to dawdle but don't have anything much at all to say or show. A good invidious comparison with The Old Man and the Gun would be Manchester by the Sea, a movie that is also leisurely paced but in which the director, Kenneth Lonergan, fills up his canvas with details that we need to know about the central characters. Manchester by the Sea builds; it gets richer and more detailed; it goes somewhere. The Old Man and the Gun just lies there like a dead flounder.

Fair enough. I don't you know you well enough, I hesitated before sending that kidding post. I did not know that Sundance movies usually drove you nuts. I think I understood what you meant for The Old Man and the Gun. Your film knowledge is kilometers in orbit over mine. I did appreciate that tip for The Death of Louis the XIV, I would never have spotted that.

The following isn't a criticism. Like I said, I haven't known you very long. This year you seem to be posting relatively more lower-rated film reviews. Are you making a conscious effort to also post reviews of lesser films, or have you hit a string of bad luck? Or maybe it could be a tad more quiet year this year for films and you have more time to write-up lesser projects? I'm not keeping official score, I just seem to think of, or remember you posting more top-rated film reviews before. But maybe they're just not there this year, in the same numbers? .....Or maybe it could be I just remember the good ones and forget the bad.
(Your lower rated film reviews are appreciated too, I'm really not complaining; saves me the grief of looking many of them up later if someone can filter them ahead of time. I appreciate your work no matter where it leads)

 

[Nalens Oga]

American Graffiti (1973) - 7/10

Features a young Ron Howard/Richard Dreyfus, also a small Harrison Ford role. Better than some of Linklater's stuff like Dazed & Confused but overrated American nostalgia either way imo. Some parts of the stories work, others don't, it's a mixed bag. Visually, it looked awful imo or at least the Netflix version did. The cheesy dialogue here is quite laughable but it does feel real as if it fits with 70s teen culture though I don't want to give George Lucas any credit, it was probably considered bad dialogue even then.

One Day (2016) - 5/10

Anne Hathaway does a perfectly fine British accent imo, it's just that she does a Manchester one and these morons criticize it because they expect it to be London. But anyways, f*** this film. It didn't make use of its gimmick and the story was quite pathetic and played out, it wasn't entertaining, it didn't say anything, it had no lasting impact, and it had a shit ending. In fairness, it was based on a book which was also probably shit.

 

[kihei]

Fair enough. I don't you know you well enough, I hesitated before sending that kidding post. I did not know that Sundance movies usually drove you nuts. I think I understood what you meant for The Old Man and the Gun. Your film knowledge is kilometers in orbit over mine. I did appreciate that tip for The Death of Louis the XIV, I would never have spotted that.

The following isn't a criticism. Like I said, I haven't known you very long. This year you seem to be posting relatively more lower-rated film reviews. Are you making a conscious effort to also post reviews of lesser films, or have you hit a string of bad luck? Or maybe it could be a tad more quiet year this year for films and you have more time to write-up lesser projects? I'm not keeping official score, I just seem to think of, or remember you posting more top-rated film reviews before. But maybe they're just not there this year, in the same numbers? .....Or maybe it could be I just remember the good ones and forget the bad.
(Your lower rated film reviews are appreciated too, I'm really not complaining; saves me the grief of looking many of them up later if someone can filter them ahead of time. I appreciate your work no matter where it leads)

I think it is just an off year for movies in general, so far anyway. Nothing really satisfying has come out of Hollywood yet though I liked both Leave No Trace and The Sisters Brothers, and only four or five international films have really caught my attention. The last two years I ended up liking about 50 films each year--a high-water mark in a excellent century so far. This year I think I have about 20 films on that list at the moment, way behind the pace of any year since 2002.

 

[kihei]

Speaking of really bad movies:

Salt and Fire (2017) Directed by Werner Herzog 3B

Salt and Fire is a truly whacky kidnap movie set in the salt flats of Bolivia. This guy Matt (Michael Shannon) kidnaps a UN scientific investigator (Veronica Ferres) who is to report back on ecological conditions in one part of Bolivia. Who is he, and why he kidnaps her when he could just introduce himself and show her around are two big issues that the film never deals with convincingly. Turns out he is a CEO of a major corporation that has helped destroy the region, and now he wants her to let the world know how bad the situation is. Why is he being his own whistle blower? Director Werner Herzog doesn't seem to know or especially care. In some badly misjudged way, Salt and Fire is intended as a pro-ecology movie. But the script is a hilarious disaster with the actors trying and failing to spout some of the worst drivel this side of a first-year creative writing class. Yet, this being a Herzog movie, it does have its moments. Werner gets to show off some fascinating locations and mesmerizing landscapes. Maybe this movie gave him the excuse he needed to visit them. He does come up with one long scene at the end--where Laura is deliberately left to fend for herself in the desert with two young boys--that is shot and directed with a precision and a sense of purpose completely lacking in the rest of the movie. But it is a case of too little too late: Salt and Fire is the worst Werner Herzog movie that I have ever seen.

 

[Puck]

I think it is just an off year for movies in general, so far anyway. Nothing really satisfying has come out of Hollywood yet though I liked both Leave No Trace and The Sisters Brothers, and only four or five international films have really caught my attention. The last two years I ended up liking about 50 films each year--a high-water mark in a excellent century so far. This year I think I have about 20 films on that list at the moment, way behind the pace of any year since 2002.

I'm glad a veteran movie buff agrees with me on this one. THere are no hard stats on this, but my own spidey senses were telling me there seemed to be somewhat of a penury (paying you back for 'invidious') of films this year. I hope it's just cyclical for 2018 and not an indication of a larger disruption caused by new technologies (internet, streaming services, home theatre systems). I'm thinking serious production projects might migrate over to a delivery of home streaming services (Prime, Netflix, HBO, On Demand) where an older gen prefers to watch at home and the cinema experience might be left to catering to a younger crowd that still flocks to cinemas. I've personally never seen so many horror flick offerings lately ( a 13-to-25 pleaser this year and we all know the studios are Marvellizing more for their investments). I think the Asia-East Euro market might go against a possible trend, so you'd be immunized there somewhat. But overall I hope it's cyclical and not a second derivative downward trend.

I'm not a pessimist, cinema will survive. People have predicted the death of cinema since the birth of tv. It won't happen. But some changes are coming I think.

p.s. My Mom got me to supply DVDs to the retirement home going back many years now. Most all DVD rental shops have closed and I flipped to downloading movies and copying to DVD (not bragging about pirating but I had to adapt). I've had a greater difficulty finding new movies this year for that age group (there is always an abundance of old stuff for them, I'm just talking new movie offerings). I find there is a marked decrease in the movie genres that would please that demographic. I've been doing this for over a decade now, I don't think it's my imagination (this year was bad). By the way the big hits last Winter were Paddington 2 and Coco at the Home. I might have to go that (kiddy) route more to keep 'em happy lol.

 

[kihei]

First Man (2018) Directed by Damiene Chazelle 5A

First Man is about Neil Armstrong, the first human to set foot on the moon. Two focal points vie for screen time--one, Armstrong's mission; the other, his home life. The NASA stuff is well done. The home stuff raises more questions than it answers. For starters, Armstrong is as about as demonstrative as a fence post--maybe historically true, but hard to portray at the movies. Neil is the archetype of the silent hero who lets his actions do the talking. While this approach works fine on his job, at home he just seems distant and inexpressive. The movie starts with the death of the Armstrongs' three-year-old daughter, and director Damien Chazelle uses reference of that tragedy somewhat shamelessly throughout the movie to show that Neil has an emotional core after all. Tugging repeatedly at our heartstrings is not necessarily a good idea, though. It seems like a cheap trick, and, as a result, I never quite did know what to make of Armstrong, or fully trust Chazelle who doesn't seem surefooted here about the kind of hero he wants to portray. Also surprising is that the film is set in a turbulent time, 1969, but Chazelle shows only a cursory amount of interest in referencing the era. The lack of period authenticity creates a social context that seemingly exists in a vacuum. The NASA sequences fare much better, showing Neil, cool under pressure, overcome some frightening situations--most of them shot with the shakiest camera imaginable abetted by some first rate sound mixing and sound editing. Decidedly dingy, First Man is a not especially eye-catching movie to watch. There are a few nice shots here and there, but overall the color palette of the movie complements its tone, somber. Without Gosling's yeoman efforts to breathe some life into this guy, I can't imagine First Man holding my attention as well as it did.

 

[JackSlater]

First Man - 7/10

From everything that I've ever seen, Neil Armstrong was a straight and narrow, pretty boring guy. The movie doesn't really hide that and for the most part makes the most of it, though it does use his daughter a bit too much. The performances were strong, especially Foy's. A lot of good "That Guy" actors as well. Things looked era appropriate, though I didn't really like how the movie was shot. Too much handheld and too many unneeded closeups gave the movie a needlessly frantic feel at times. Music was great, especially in space. My biggest issue isn't with the movie itself but just with the subject matter. Armstrong is a determined but boring figure. The space race itself is very interesting however and would have been a far more interesting movie subject. Armstrong could have been a prominent figure in such a movie (or not honestly) and the focus could have been on more interesting figures and events.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

In my continued half-assed quest to assorted horror films this month ...

Though I consider myself a horror fan, I haven't taken in a lot of the new stuff in the past decade or so, particularly any of the ones that have spawned ongoing series. I don't know my Conjurings from my Insidouses from my Sinsters. I don't know who The Nun is or where the Annabelle goes. I've tended to cherry pick the really well reviewed horror (It Follows, The Witch, Hereditary, etc.) and then go back to anything from the 1950s-2000s to get my true fix. Trying to rectify that a bit.

So I'd never seen a single minute of any of The Purge movies before. Concept always intrigued me. Just never sought it out. Finally tackled the first one. It's really a killer set-up. A high-minded twist on classic home invasion horror fare. Memorable creepy killers. Every single twist is predictable and I thought the kid's little robot was dumb. But competently acted (by the adults) and decently directed. I can see why the idea has spawned more. With four (I think) movies now and a TV series, I'm curious where this one ranks for fans.

I say half-assed, because (with a few exceptions) I haven't been seeking out specific movies. I'm just sitting on my rear, scanning the assorted streaming channels in front of my face, which leads me to Netflix with its big boom of horror. I wrote about Gerald's Game a few pages ago.

I also tackled The Ritual. Tragedy strikes a group of British buddies and spurs them to take a backpacking vacation in Sweden. Are there scary woods? Yep. Do they decide they need to take a shortcut through said scary woods? You bet! You get a little Blair Witchiness here, a little Wicker Manniness there, but it's an effective cocktail. Rafe Spall is aces as the damaged protagonist. A pretty good sense of dread throughout. I was ok with the ending, but I wonder if others have issues.

I also took in Hold the Dark, which is probably more of a thriller if we want to be real pedantic, but definitely has some horror vibes and imagery throughout. I think director Jeremy Saulnier is a true talent. Big fan of his first two films, so was eager to dive into this. Geoffrey Wright is a wolf expert recruited by a young mother to come to Alaska to find the wolves that took her kid. Not sure why I even share that logline plot though because, to be honest, this story changes directions about three times in its first 40 minutes before it settles down into what it really is. There is a mystery here, but it isn't what you first expect. Great sense of place. Good acting, though everyone in the cast is super low-key and subdued. There's a fairly harrowing acting setpiece in the middle that's well done. I thought it was pretty solid though it's another one where the ending may make or break it for you.

I really liked both The Ritual and Hold the Dark, but the Ritual fell flat for me when the god appeared. I think it would have been better if we never saw the god, just kind of let the menacing presence get conjured up in our own imaginations.

Since you liked The Ritual, check out Caliber. It’s in the same vein (buddies in the woods, things go very wrong), save the supernatural plot.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

First Man - 7/10

From everything that I've ever seen, Neil Armstrong was a straight and narrow, pretty boring guy. The movie doesn't really hide that and for the most part makes the most of it, though it does use his daughter a bit too much. The performances were strong, especially Foy's. A lot of good "That Guy" actors as well. Things looked era appropriate, though I didn't really like how the movie was shot. Too much handheld and too many unneeded closeups gave the movie a needlessly frantic feel at times. Music was great, especially in space. My biggest issue isn't with the movie itself but just with the subject matter. Armstrong is a determined but boring figure. The space race itself is very interesting however and would have been a far more interesting movie subject. Armstrong could have been a prominent figure in such a movie (or not honestly) and the focus could have been on more interesting figures and events.

Is it just me, or does Damien Chazelle just kind of sucks?

 

[NyQuil]

Is it just me, or does Damien Chazelle just kind of sucks?

I really enjoyed Whiplash.

 

[kihei]

Is it just me, or does Damien Chazelle just kind of sucks?

His movies have perplexing subtexts. I think he has a woozy moral compass, especially when it comes to his male characters, so, yeah, until he figures out a few things, he kind of sucks.

 

[JackSlater]

Is it just me, or does Damien Chazelle just kind of sucks?

I really liked Whiplash, so I lean no. Never saw La La Land but I would likely hate it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Continuing my annual horror binge through the month of October. This was my big weekend, staring with an unofficial mini-marathon with some friends followed by an actual, organized 24-hour, 12-movie marathon. Tried to keep thoughts brief.

Mini-thon
Poltergeist (original). Haven’t watched in years, maybe even as many as two decades and I have to say, it doesn’t hold up nearly as well as I remember. Kinda cheesy to be honest. The Jerry Goldsmith score (Oscar nominated) is overpowering and, at least in my opinion, too light for what’s actually occurring. Still love Craig T. Nelson’s big line about moving the tombstones, but not the bodies.

Unsane. Soderbergh’s latest. More of a thriller throughout, but takes more of a firm turn toward horror in its final third. Clair Foy plays a woman committed to a psych facility under mysterious circumstances. Is her paranoia all in her head? There’s a modern layer of real economic horror here and the answers to key questions arrive sooner than one may think so a lot is put onto Foy. She carries it fine. Soderbergh’s assorted ventures are always interesting (even minor ones like this), but if you’re not really into him or Foy, I’m not sure there’s much to really crow about.

Alice Sweet Alice. A little slice of 1970s “bad kid” horror. Along with the far, far better Don’t Look Now, which came before or The Brood, which came after, we have a mysterious, diminutive killer (or killers?) in a rain slicker cutting down folks in a New Jersey town (starting with a young Brooke Shields). Creepy killer getup, but otherwise forgettable fare.

The Void. Been meaning to catch up on this for a couple of years now. Rock solid piece of “strangers trapped in a building with ominous weirdness happening around them” Gory. Weird. Some pretty memorable visuals. Plays it straight, not for laughs.

Actual horror marathon (I’ve been up for 30 hours straight at this point, save a little nodding off in one of these, so forgive any nonsense):

From Dusk Till Dawn. Seen it several times, but twice now in a marathon setting. Absolutely kills in a packed theater. Right up there among the great fun, entertaining horror flicks of the past few decades.

The Innocents. A long-time favorite of mine. Saving deeper thoughts for an upcoming Movie Club review.

Hagazussa: A Heathen’s Curse. Super atmospheric German movie set in the 15th century. A witch lives off in the woods. She isn’t well liked be her more civilized, Christian neighbors. It’s a slooooowww burn and won’t be for everyone, but it is memorable and director Lukas Feigelfeld is brimming with talent.

Scream for Help. My favorite of the lineup. An early 80s thriller from Michael “Death Wish” Winner. It’s like if Nancy Drew thought her stepdad was trying to murder her mom. And it is something to see. Certainly what one may call a “good” bad movie, though that descriptor isn’t fully right. Tough to categorize, but if you like laughing at 80s-set nonsense, you’ll probably enjoy this. Played great in the theater. Not sure how it plays at home alone. Sometimes the crowd can really sell these things.

Pumpkinhead. Late 80s classic of sorts and directorial debut of FX wiz Stan Winston. It’s a solid enough supernatural revenge flick, but I prefer my 80s teen-killing a little more tongue in cheek. This is a serious one.

Luz. Another recent-made German horror flick (getting wider US release next year so we were told). Another winner. A tight, engrossing tale of possession told in a way I haven’t quite seen before. I wouldn’t want to say more than than that.

Lost Highway. David Lynch is hit-or-miss for me. I dig the soundtrack and Robert Loggia’s tailgating rant is a classic, but otherwise this is mostly a miss for me. I think Bill Pullman is awful in it and though I always appreciate Lynch’s audacity, I don’t always want to sit through it.

Crystal Eyes. An Argentinian movie that’s a loving, if a little hacky, homage to the classic Italian giallo. An obnoxious model dies in a horrific accident. A year later, something or someone is getting all stabby stabby with anyone associated with it. Meh.

Deep Red. Speaking of giallos... one of the master, Dario Argento’s best. Unfortunately, 4 a.m. is a TOUGH time to watch this. For the second time in the 15 years that I have attended this event, I slept through most of Deep Red. Beautiful restored print though, from what I saw.

Night of the Demons. Maybe I need to take my earlier comment about preferring my 80s teen-killing a little more tongue in cheek. You do get that in this, but it’s a pretty basic, very bizarrely edited, affair here. Granted I was pretty tired, but I felt it was more tedious than fun. Not that there weren’t some laughs to be had.

Terror Train. More 80s horror. Jamie Lee Curtis and all her sorority and fraternity friends are doing an overnight train trip party. But there’s a killer on board and he’s seeking revenge on the students for a prank that went wrong years earlier. Kids! More notable and interesting because the cast includes the great Ben Johnson slumming it as a kindly train conductor and David Copperfield playing, believe it or not, a magician.

In the Mouth of Madness. John Carpenter is one of my five favorite directors regardless of genre, full stop. This is among his best, though it doesn’t quite carry the reputation as some of his heaviest hitters. An insurance investigator is sent to track down a popular writer who may be driving people insane with his books. The best HP Lovecraft or Stephen King story that neither of those writers ever wrote.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I really liked both The Ritual and Hold the Dark, but the Ritual fell flat for me when the god appeared. I think it would have been better if we never saw the god, just kind of let the menacing presence get conjured up in our own imaginations.

Since you liked The Ritual, check out Caliber. It’s in the same vein (buddies in the woods, things go very wrong), save the supernatural plot.

I was ok with the last bit of The Ritual, but won’t deny it is a stronger movie when there are more questions than answers. Answers can be such a double edge sword in horror sometimes.

Will check out Caliber.

 

[NyQuil]

I really liked Whiplash, so I lean no. Never saw La La Land but I would likely hate it.

I was surprised to have liked La La Land but Gosling and Stone are so gosh darned earnest and adorable.

 

[Shareefruck]

I found Whiplash engaging, and I don't technically know enough about Jazz to be certain of this (maybe there's a subsection of jazz that it is appropriate for), but it seriously rubbed me the wrong way that it chose to tell this type of story with jazz. I mean.... aren't they getting the spirit of the art form and what makes it special completely backwards? Since when can you just soullessly drill-sergeant your way into becoming an amazing jazz musician? I'm pretty sure that isn't what Charlie Parker did to get good (by locking himself in a room and slavishly training his fingers to be faster or whatever crap) in that story, either.

I heard someone say that it's an overly reductive sports movie trying to pass itself off as a music movie and I think that's pretty accurate.

 

[OzzyFan]

Bad Times at the El Royale
2.75 out of 4stars

While it's reach exceeds it's grasp, among a couple other issues, the final product is well worth a watch for the performances, style, and noir related subtext/commentary. Most of the 1st half of the movie is slow slow burn and a less is more approach, which works pretty well building mystery and intrigue. It also has quality storytelling and dialogue, with great character building and earned empathy, even if all it's holes or questions are not filled in by the end (which is fine given that's not a major point of the movie). The bad, well the ending will probably upset some although it fits the storyline and primary theme to a tee, I was fine with it. The editing, attempting the Tarantino approach in the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie feels like a bit too much overlapping of the same event(s) and feels like Goddard's trying to juggle too much, arguably too many characters or storylines here. As stated, there is a bit of ambiguity still by the end of the movie, which is fine given the films intentions, but it definitely feels more of a "trying to juggle too much into 1 film" than an actual "everything that's left up should be" "a" "leave it up to the audience" sort of thing. And given it's 2hr 20min runtime, it more than likely is a "not enough time" sort of thing. It's definitely a different fun mentally engaging watch I recommend, albeit a slightly bumpy one.