What is The Last Movie You Watched?

[Nick Danger]

Jackson, it seems to me, is a criminal on a different level, because he harmed people, because his interest in children was not natural.

Iiiiiiiiiiiiii'm not so sure I agree. Michael Jackson was a victim of society. I've met a LOT of famous musicians - pretty much all of them who were big in the 80's, including Michael (spent 18 years in radio and music promotion). The ones who are new to the game can run the gamut from "still taking it all in" to "obnoxious as hell," but the ones who have been established for many years all have one thing in common - fear of people.

I mean real fear, as in they are afraid to go out in public. Any established superstar knows that as soon as he's recognized his life is in danger.

On the other hand, they are treated like royalty by those lesser mortals whose careers intersect theirs. They like that. Never met a musician yet who didn't enjoy being served by everyone in the vicinity; single exception - Neil Young, but he's an exception to pretty much every rule, I don't think he even has a tour rider.

My point is, though, that kind of separation from reality is unhealthy. Period. I've never seen a single superstar artist who was better off for being famous, they all develop more issues than Sports Illustrated. Forget about egoism, imagine being treated like...a god!

Now imagine being treated that way your entire life, from early childhood to death. That's Michael Jackson. The man was SEVERELY mentally ill. And it was through no fault of his own, he simply followed the path laid out before him by his own father, which is an entirely different story.

I don't hold Michael accountable for his actions any more than I would hold any mentally ill person accountable. I don't think HE is responsible for what WE turned him into.

Regarding his music, well, I don't listen to it either. But I recognize the pure pop genius of it all, and I'm 100% comfortable saying that overall, the world was a better place because Michael Jackson was in it.

[Stavros]

I agree with most of your post, Nick, but not the claim that Jackson acted the way he did 'through no fault of his own'. He was not a zombie, he was capable of engaging in adult negotiations on his contracts for recordings, videos, gigs and so on, and was compos mentis enough to make the commercial decision to buy the Beatles catalogue. If he was indeed capable of acting like the mature adult male that he was, where did all this 'lost childhood' rubbish come from? It was a device by which he justified 'Neverland' as a place where children and he could 'have fun', taking the latter to extremes. We can agree that wealth and fame can distort reality, that rock musicians have wasted/ruined their lives through drink and drugs, but Jackson was not a helpless slave to his past, he was in control of his life, and had the power to change it any time he wanted. He chose his way of life just as he chose his lovers, illegal though those choices were.

[Nick Danger]

I agree with most of your post, Nick, but not the claim that Jackson acted the way he did 'through no fault of his own'. He was not a zombie, he was capable of engaging in adult negotiations on his contracts for recordings, videos, gigs and so on, and was compos mentis enough to make the commercial decision to buy the Beatles catalogue. If he was indeed capable of acting like the mature adult male that he was, where did all this 'lost childhood' rubbish come from? It was a device by which he justified 'Neverland' as a place where children and he could 'have fun', taking the latter to extremes. We can agree that wealth and fame can distort reality, that rock musicians have wasted/ruined their lives through drink and drugs, but Jackson was not a helpless slave to his past, he was in control of his life, and had the power to change it any time he wanted. He chose his way of life just as he chose his lovers, illegal though those choices were.

Yet another perspective is that no mental illness is the fault of the person experiencing it. Otherwise it's not mental illness. If I decide to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat and a carrot hanging out of my butt, that doesn't make me mentally ill. But if I am COMPELLED to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat with a carrot out my butt, I probably need to be evaluated.

Point being that the very concept of mental illness dictates that the person is not in control.

I think you would agree that Ted Bundy was mentally ill - the compulsion to savagely kill and mutilate is certainly an aberration from the norm. But he was also quite capable of having a career and taking care of business while he wasn't obeying his compulsion. Just like Michael Jackson. Of course, we deemed Ted Bundy guilty because his crimes were too monstrous - society needed to kill him to wash the stain of him off the planet. But Michael was no monster. His deeds had negative consequences, but his victims are still alive, and appear to be thriving. I mean, I watched Leaving Neverland too, both Savechuck and Robson are at least functional enough to take care of themselves, they're both good-looking guys, and intelligent. Undoubtedly some of what Michael did to them left emotional scars, but let's not forget that in Ancient Rome, nearly EVERY young boy of good family was sexually "mentored" by an adult man. And they managed to build an empire.

Also, don't ever think it escaped my attention that both Savechuck and Robson thoroughly enjoyed telling their stories. It sounded like their biggest regret about the whole thing was not the sexual abuse itself, but the time when the sexual abuse stopped and another child was getting Michael's attention instead.

Anyway, I can forgive Michael, because I don't think he ever, at any point in his life, had any grip on reality. Maybe other people can't.

[broncofan]

Having mental illness does not mean a person is not in control of any decision they make. The legal standard for it makes some sense of the issue. Under the McNaghten test a person is only not guilty of a crime if he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing based on some mental deficiency. In more than 99% of cases of mental illness you would not meet these conditions.

The degree to which someone's agency and decision-making is altered by their experiences and biology is an interesting question, but morally we do have to assume people are culpable for what they do except in the most extreme circumstances where the defect completely strips them of normal agency.

I don't you could possibly know what effect any crime had on the victim and your sense that they just wanted attention is at best very uncharitable.

[broncofan]

I read more carefully your distinction about wanting to go out with the carrot in your butt vs being compelled to. This looks a bit more like the irresistible impulse test. I'm not saying arguments can't be made, but it's pretty unknowable the degree to which someone might have stopped themselves from a course of action they've provably taken. For that reason, maybe it should only apply to those who have gross injury to the frontal lobe or something and literally don't have the cognitive means to stop themselves once they've begun a course of action rather than to anyone who compulsively abuses other people.

If that test were applied this broadly it could defend any sociopathic behavior.

Edit: to conclude, I haven't seen the Michael Jackson documentary, but probably will at some point.

[Nick Danger]

Having mental illness does not mean a person is not in control of any decision they make. The legal standard for it makes some sense of the issue. Under the McNaghten test a person is only not guilty of a crime if he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing based on some mental deficiency. In more than 99% of cases of mental illness you would not meet these conditions.

The degree to which someone's agency and decision-making is altered by their experiences and biology is an interesting question, but morally we do have to assume people are culpable for what they do except in the most extreme circumstances where the defect completely strips them of normal agency.

I don't you could possibly know what effect any crime had on the victim and your sense that they just wanted attention is at best very uncharitable.

I won't disagree with you, I'm aware I am an uncharitable person when it comes to feeling sorry for people who have their health and their youth. Hurt feelings? Everybody's got hurt feelings, we get over it and move on.

I freely admit I do not know what effect Michael's abuse had on these lads, I myself was not sexually abused, though I did get the living shit kicked out of me a few times - and well-deserved IIRC. All I know is that Savechuck and Robson are doing just fine now, and I don't think it's uncharitable of me to state the very truth that they themselves told - the truth about their feelings of jealousy when Michael STOPPED abusing them. It's not as if they're "shells of a human being" now because of what happened. I personally found them to be quite eloquent, personable, and likeable. I have no doubt of their future success.

Anyway, regarding all the legal standards of which you speak, I'm not talking about legal standards here. Michael's gone, there's not going to be a trial. I'm just talking about his legacy in the court of public opinion. I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority - probably the minority. But I'm sure there will be people who will forgive Michael, and people who won't. And the people who forgive him will be the ones who realize that the poor guy was driven batshit insane by having superstardom thrust upon him at the age of FIVE!! Jesus Christ, look at all the crazy shit Michael did to himself. He turned himself into a freak - not because he wanted to be a freak but because that's just how out of touch he was with the rest of the human race.

I ain't saying it's right. But I am saying it's forgivable, because the perpetrator is Michael Jackson. We ALL created Michael Jackson.

[Stavros]

Yet another perspective is that no mental illness is the fault of the person experiencing it. Otherwise it's not mental illness. If I decide to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat and a carrot hanging out of my butt, that doesn't make me mentally ill. But if I am COMPELLED to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat with a carrot out my butt, I probably need to be evaluated.

Anyway, I can forgive Michael, because I don't think he ever, at any point in his life, had any grip on reality. Maybe other people can't.

You make important points, but the extent to which someone is 'mentally ill' when they behave in a certain way is too complex an issue to resolve given that we don't actually know what Michael Jackson's personal psychology was. There is a confusing debate about what mental illness is, and often the phrase 'mental health issues' is used to by-pass the former: I would refer to the Colombine shooters to try and understand how the mind does or does not work, and yes, it is the case that Michael Jackson did not actually kill anyone, though at least two suicides may be tangential to his influence. There are mental conditions that can be treated: anxiety, depression, paranoia, particularly if the person suffering believes their only remedy is violence against themselves and/or other people, but in the case of Jackson we don't know enough about his private thoughts and just because he was eccentric in some way doesn't mean he was mentally impaired.

I think claiming Jackson did not have 'a grip on reality' is bogus, he was in sufficient control to go on world tours, record albums and so forth -did he suddenly become mentally ill when he was at Neverland? No, it was a programmed environment in which Jackson got the pleasure he wanted which society deems to be both immoral and illegal.

[broncofan]

I won't disagree with you, I'm aware I am an uncharitable person when it comes to feeling sorry for people who have their health and their youth. Hurt feelings? Everybody's got hurt feelings, we get over it and move on.

I came across a bit wooden there Nick. I think you clearly like Michael (I do too) and are more generous with him than those he was accused of hurting. Look for instance at what I quoted. Does this apply to Michael or do his personal traumas entitle him to far more than sympathy, which is all I might have suggested for his victims? edit: obviously Michael doesn't have his health and youth, he's dead...I meant this more for your last sentence.

Anyhow, I agree the difference between morality and legality is important. The reason I used a legal standard is because for this issue it is consistent with intuition. You'll see Stavros used the word zombie above....to me it looks like the Mcnaghten test...are we talking about someone who merely had problems or someone who couldn't do anything other than what he did? He must have been traumatized, but if he really did visit that trauma on others, it's terrible and I think unforgivable.

[Nick Danger]

I came across a bit wooden there Nick. I think you clearly like Michael (I do too) and are more generous with him than those he was accused of hurting. Look for instance at what I quoted. Does this apply to Michael or do his personal traumas entitle him to far more than sympathy, which is all I might have suggested for his victims? edit: obviously Michael doesn't have his health and youth, he's dead...I meant this more for your last sentence.

Anyhow, I agree the difference between morality and legality is important. The reason I used a legal standard is because for this issue it is consistent with intuition. You'll see Stavros used the word zombie above....to me it looks like the Mcnaghten test...are we talking about someone who merely had problems or someone who couldn't do anything other than what he did? He must have been traumatized, but if he really did visit that trauma on others, it's terrible and I think unforgivable.

Well, lets look at what he did, without getting too specific, but also without getting too judgmental. Obviously this was a sexual compulsion, but, had you seen the movie, as I'm sure you will, you would know that it was also a very strange compulsion toward childishness. Michael viewed himself as a child, he could only feel love for other little boys. A lot of the stories - MOST of them even - are about Michael and the children playing at childish things. Neverland was well-named, it was a paradise for children. But it was not there as a lure for children to victimize, it was there for Michael. He was the child. He was A child. That was the overriding characteristic of his unique disease - he'd lost his childhood, he wanted it back, and he could afford to buy it back.

I call it a disease, but it's more like a poison. I've been around these people, I've seen the poison and I've seen the effects. The poison is adoration of the masses. The effects are a life taken over by the human ego. In Michael's case, multiply by a hundred and divide by a lost childhood.


You make important points, but the extent to which someone is 'mentally ill' when they behave in a certain way is too complex an issue to resolve given that we don't actually know what Michael Jackson's personal psychology was. There is a confusing debate about what mental illness is, and often the phrase 'mental health issues' is used to by-pass the former: I would refer to the Colombine shooters to try and understand how the mind does or does not work, and yes, it is the case that Michael Jackson did not actually kill anyone, though at least two suicides may be tangential to his influence. There are mental conditions that can be treated: anxiety, depression, paranoia, particularly if the person suffering believes their only remedy is violence against themselves and/or other people, but in the case of Jackson we don't know enough about his private thoughts and just because he was eccentric in some way doesn't mean he was mentally impaired.

I think claiming Jackson did not have 'a grip on reality' is bogus, he was in sufficient control to go on world tours, record albums and so forth -did he suddenly become mentally ill when he was at Neverland? No, it was a programmed environment in which Jackson got the pleasure he wanted which society deems to be both immoral and illegal.

Try putting yourself in Michael's position, Stavros. It isn't easy to do - it's a hard position to imagine oneself in. Michael was more than just a celebrity, he was a celebrity OTHER celebrities wanted to meet. Kings, queens, and presidents hosted Michael. It would not be an exaggeration to say he was the biggest star, from any genre of art, of the 20th century.

And he'd been this GOD his entire life - from earliest childhood; literally from kindergarten. You think this guy had any chance of growing up to be just a normal guy? No fucking way. He had no frame of reference on any other way of life than being the undisputed master of the universe. Was that the life he chose for himself? I don't know, he was 5. Did he volunteer for a lifetime of unimaginable fame at the age of 5? Did he "consent" to it? I don't think so. I think his father chose it for him.

So I'll forgive him. You don't have to.

[broncofan]

This will be my last post on this not because it's not an interesting conversation but because it is such a far ranging topic and it really relates to one docu on this thread.

I see what you're saying but take someone like Andre Agassi who undoubtedly had a hard upbringing and a stolen childhood in the same sense. His Dad forced him to hit one million tennis balls from a machine as a kid, gave him illegal stimulants before a match when he was a child, and had him beat adults in high stakes money matches when he was like 6 years old.

The worst he did was wear a wig, take crystal meth with a guy named Todd, endorse tennis shorts that had spandex tights coming out of the bottom that my mom thought were cute and tried to make me wear, and a few other transgressions. He once spat on the pant leg of an umpire, denied it, but was fined when video showed it. He once hit a ball at the end of his match with Rafter at a linesperson he didn't like to scare them. Mostly primadonna stuff.

I bring this up to say this is the kind of allowance I think people should make for someone who clearly had a tough time. He was damaged by his upbringing. Michael likely was too. Agassi was emotionally unstable and did a few provocative, stupid things. Jackson is accused of horrible crimes. I accept that you forgive him and there is reason to think about the things he experienced, but I can't see it making a difference in how people should view child abuse. Just my take. Thanks for the good discussion.

[Stevie.Thomas]

Captain Marvel

It's a good film lots of fun some nice set pieces and characters. It's not the best film in the MCU but it is far from the worst.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1877036]

Neverland was well-named, it was a paradise for children. But it was not there as a lure for children to victimize, it was there for Michael. He was the child. He was A child. That was the overriding characteristic of his unique disease - he'd lost his childhood, he wanted it back, and he could afford to buy it back.
--No, this is absolute rubbish. Michael Jackson was not a child, he was a middle aged man pretending to be a child so that he could lure the boys in on the ruse they were the same -its called grooming for a reason. This was a mature man who negotiated contracts on recordings and appearances, who devised stage shows, who had access to mature adults in his home, through his lawyers and his family, with whom he shared a childhood. Most of his eccentricities were an act devised to satisfy his selfish needs at the expense of anyone who got in his way. You've been duped.

Try putting yourself in Michael's position, Stavros. It isn't easy to do - it's a hard position to imagine oneself in. Michael was more than just a celebrity, he was a celebrity OTHER celebrities wanted to meet. Kings, queens, and presidents hosted Michael. It would not be an exaggeration to say he was the biggest star, from any genre of art, of the 20th century.
--Elvis and the Beatles were bigger than Jackson, and I seem to recall at one time Presidents and Royalty wanted to be seen with the Spice Girls, and were. Pop stars are flavour of the month because pop music is ephemeral trash. The Jackson Five met Queen Elizabeth II in 1977 after a concert, and Jackson met dim-as-a-plank Princess Diana, but numerous letters to the Queen begging and begging to be given an honorary Knightood were ignored, a case of vanity being dismissed by reality. There is no need to make excuses for the man who was only called 'the King of Pop' because Jackson insisted this ridiculous title be inserted into his publicity material -wasn't Elvis 'the King'?

And he'd been this GOD his entire life - from earliest childhood; literally from kindergarten. You think this guy had any chance of growing up to be just a normal guy? No fucking way. He had no frame of reference on any other way of life than being the undisputed master of the universe. Was that the life he chose for himself? I don't know, he was 5. Did he volunteer for a lifetime of unimaginable fame at the age of 5? Did he "consent" to it? I don't think so. I think his father chose it for him.
--We have been told Jackson was abused as a child, not the sort of things that happens to Gods. He was just a man, that he chose to speak in a falsetto voice, engage in relentless surgery to change his appearance, and seduce young boys to satisfy his carnal lust is the baggage that attends his professional career as an entertainer. No excuses, please.

[Nick Danger]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1877036]

Neverland was well-named, it was a paradise for children. But it was not there as a lure for children to victimize, it was there for Michael. He was the child. He was A child. That was the overriding characteristic of his unique disease - he'd lost his childhood, he wanted it back, and he could afford to buy it back.
--No, this is absolute rubbish. Michael Jackson was not a child, he was a middle aged man pretending to be a child so that he could lure the boys in on the ruse they were the same -its called grooming for a reason. This was a mature man who negotiated contracts on recordings and appearances, who devised stage shows, who had access to mature adults in his home, through his lawyers and his family, with whom he shared a childhood. Most of his eccentricities were an act devised to satisfy his selfish needs at the expense of anyone who got in his way. You've been duped.

Try putting yourself in Michael's position, Stavros. It isn't easy to do - it's a hard position to imagine oneself in. Michael was more than just a celebrity, he was a celebrity OTHER celebrities wanted to meet. Kings, queens, and presidents hosted Michael. It would not be an exaggeration to say he was the biggest star, from any genre of art, of the 20th century.
--Elvis and the Beatles were bigger than Jackson, and I seem to recall at one time Presidents and Royalty wanted to be seen with the Spice Girls, and were. Pop stars are flavour of the month because pop music is ephemeral trash. The Jackson Five met Queen Elizabeth II in 1977 after a concert, and Jackson met dim-as-a-plank Princess Diana, but numerous letters to the Queen begging and begging to be given an honorary Knightood were ignored, a case of vanity being dismissed by reality. There is no need to make excuses for the man who was only called 'the King of Pop' because Jackson insisted this ridiculous title be inserted into his publicity material -wasn't Elvis 'the King'?

And he'd been this GOD his entire life - from earliest childhood; literally from kindergarten. You think this guy had any chance of growing up to be just a normal guy? No fucking way. He had no frame of reference on any other way of life than being the undisputed master of the universe. Was that the life he chose for himself? I don't know, he was 5. Did he volunteer for a lifetime of unimaginable fame at the age of 5? Did he "consent" to it? I don't think so. I think his father chose it for him.
--We have been told Jackson was abused as a child, not the sort of things that happens to Gods. He was just a man, that he chose to speak in a falsetto voice, engage in relentless surgery to change his appearance, and seduce young boys to satisfy his carnal lust is the baggage that attends his professional career as an entertainer. No excuses, please.

Pretty harsh, and, might I say, pedestrian assessment of a man no one has ever really understood. Some psychologists agree he suffered from an erotic identity disorder known as autopedophilia, in which the individual wishes to become the object of his desire - in Michael's case, a young boy. Thing is, there are only a few other cases of this and it is an unstudied illness. - https://www.science20.com/j_michael_bailey/michael_jackson_erotic_identity_disorder-55152

Point? Even world-class psychologists don't understand what the fuck happened to Michael Jackson to turn him into Wacko Jacko, but they do know it was mental illness. You've appointed yourself, Stavros, to diagnose Michael as a canny predator from quite a distance away from the scene. Can't argue with such an adamantly unqualified appeal to authority.

Also, neither Elvis or the Beatles were as big as Michael Jackson, who had the distinct advantage of experiencing his career zenith during the MTV era, thereby becoming the most-recognized celebrity on a planet with twice as many people on it as lived during Elvis' heyday. Michael's music cut across all barriers, musical, racial, and political. And if he wanted a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth and couldn't get it, it probably had a lot to do with the fact that he's an American, or black, or maybe the Queen prefers smooth jazz.

There's simply no question that more people on planet Earth could tell you who Michael Jackson is than who Elvis Presley is, or who could name even one of the Beatles (there were 4 of them, you know). So no, you're just wrong about that, Stavros, Michael Jackson is quite possibly STILL the most famous person on the planet.

[Laphroaig]

No excuses, please.

This. Caveat being that the allegations are actually true. You never see this level of defence given to "normal" paedophiles. Then "it's lock em up and throw away the key", or "bring back hanging". Super-stardom doesn't bring immunity...

[Nick Danger]

This. Caveat being that the allegations are actually true. You never see this level of defence given to "normal" paedophiles. Then "it's lock em up and throw away the key", or "bring back hanging". Super-stardom doesn't bring immunity...

No, but you know what does bring immunity, Laphroaig? Death.

I'll tell you right now that I believe every bit of the testimony about Michael's sexual abuse. I believe the ones who say he did it, but furthermore, I believe the ones who say he didn't, including Macaualy Culkin. I don't think it was ever his initial plan to abuse these kids, it seems like it really did just start out as friendship. And I think that with some of these boys, the childlike friendship never did develop to the level that Michael couldn't control his impulses. With some of them it did. If you've seen the movie, then you know that with all these boys, if you take away the sexual abuse, there is also a real playmate friendship happening.

Also, Michael never harmed any of them. The guy was a gazillionaire, he could have quite easily had them all whacked and buried in the desert, and never have to face these allegations. So he was no sociopath.

I realize I'm defending him. I don't mind, though, I do think he's a special case that should be given special consideration. Obviously others disagree.

[broncofan]

I'll tell you right now that I believe every bit of the testimony about Michael's sexual abuse. I believe the ones who say he did it, but furthermore, I believe the ones who say he didn't, including Macaualy Culkin..
Talk about low expectations. A pedophile getting credit for the children he didn't molest? Getting credit for not killing the children he did? Come on Nick. He did awful things, which you acknowledge.

[Laphroaig]

No, but you know what does bring immunity, Laphroaig? Death.

I'll tell you right now that I believe every bit of the testimony about Michael's sexual abuse. I believe the ones who say he did it, but furthermore, I believe the ones who say he didn't, including Macaualy Culkin. I don't think it was ever his initial plan to abuse these kids, it seems like it really did just start out as friendship. And I think that with some of these boys, the childlike friendship never did develop to the level that Michael couldn't control his impulses. With some of them it did. If you've seen the movie, then you know that with all these boys, if you take away the sexual abuse, there is also a real playmate friendship happening.

Also, Michael never harmed any of them. The guy was a gazillionaire, he could have quite easily had them all whacked and buried in the desert, and never have to face these allegations. So he was no sociopath.

I realize I'm defending him. I don't mind, though, I do think he's a special case that should be given special consideration. Obviously others disagree.

Death may put someone beyond physical punishment for their actions, but it didn't for example prevent Jimmy Saville's crimes from being exposed. Did he deserve special consideration for all the charity work he did over the years?

You may believe (some of) the allegations against Jackson, but if there's one thing in all this that I find even more disturbing than Jackson's (alleged) crimes, it's many of his fans utter inability to even conceive that he could possibly do anything wrong. I witnessed this first hand during the in 2004-5 trial. They are as fanatical as any ISIS member.

[Nick Danger]

Talk about low expectations. A pedophile getting credit for the children he didn't molest? Getting credit for not killing the children he did? Come on Nick. He did awful things, which you acknowledge.

I'm not keeping score, Bronco. All I'm saying by that is that if you believe the stories from the kids who say there was the child-like friendship but no sexual abuse, then it implies Michael wasn't motivated by the prospect of eventually abusing the boys, but instead by some different compulsion, which in his case, I think, is pretty obviously that he wanted to be a young boy forever.

Michael wasn't "grooming" these children for abuse, he really did want a friend to play with. I mean if you listen to Stavros, Michael planned his entire life around putting himself into a position to abuse children. It wasn't that predatory, there were other problems with Michael's mental health that pushed him to develop these friendships with young boys. Sometimes the friendships developed into sexual abuse, based on Michael's mental illness, which as I mentioned before, some psychologists believe is a rare disorder called autopedophilia. But sometimes, it remained just a friendship.

To be altogether totally frank, I'm a bit surprised that this is suddenly such a big issue. I have always believed Michael was a pedophile. And a very sick person. I thought everyone knew that. But I guess some people just haven't been paying very close attention to the constantly-developing Michael Jackson story for the last, uh, 50 years?

[Nick Danger]

Death may put someone beyond physical punishment for their actions, but it didn't for example prevent Jimmy Saville's crimes from being exposed. Did he deserve special consideration for all the charity work he did over the years?

You may believe (some of) the allegations against Jackson, but if there's one thing in all this that I find even more disturbing than Jackson's (alleged) crimes, it's many of his fans utter inability to even conceive that he could possibly do anything wrong. I witnessed this first hand during the in 2004-5 trial. They are as fanatical as any ISIS member.

Michael is greatly beloved, Laph. He was a real charmer. Always smiling and loving, voice like spun silk, moves like a cat, child-like enthusiasm, God-given talent - what's not to like? Oh yeah, he was a pedophile - almost forgot.

[Laphroaig]

Michael is greatly beloved, Laph. He was a real charmer. Always smiling and loving, voice like spun silk, moves like a cat, child-like enthusiasm, God-given talent - what's not to like? Oh yeah, he was a pedophile - almost forgot.

Personally I can't stand his music, find his squeaky voice incredibly irritating and could never understand his appeal.:shrug I've held that opinion long before any untoward allegations were made against him.

I get that many people liked and enjoyed his music. I don't get the fanaticism, undying loyalty and refusal to accept that he may have done something wrong, that surrounds him.

[Nick Danger]

Personally I can't stand his music, find his squeaky voice incredibly irritating and could never understand his appeal.:shrug I've held that opinion long before any untoward allegations were made against him.

I get that many people liked and enjoyed his music. I don't get the fanaticism, undying loyalty and refusal to accept that he may have done something wrong, that surrounds him.

I was a senior in high school when Thriller came out. And I was a rocker back then, so were all my friends, and it was out of the question for anyone in my crew to be a Michael Jackson fan. It would be...embarrassing. To even have a pop album in your collection.

But that didn't matter in 1982, and 1983, and beyond, because you were going to hear Thriller anyway. You were going to see every song in heavy rotation on MTV and you were going to hear it in "A" rotation on multiple radio formats, and you were going to read about it in music magazines and newspapers and see it on the Billboard charts for YEARS. And you were going to get burned out on every single goddamn Michael Jackson mega-hit on that accursed album, even though it wasn't in your music collection at all.

But to this day, when I hear one of those songs, which still happens often, I still recognize the genius of it. It still sounds fresh and inimitable all these decades later, even if it doesn't exactly suit my tastes. It really is some amazing music. And I remember all those fantastic dance moves from the videos. And I still can't deny the amazing talent of Michael Jackson, even though I still think it would be extremely uncool to have any of his albums.

[broncofan]

I like a lot of his songs Nick. I don't think it has a bearing on any of the other stuff we're talking about. But I have Dirty Diana, Billy Jean and a few others on my playlist. Not everyone likes him but I think he was an amazing talent.

[Laphroaig]

I like a lot of his songs Nick. I don't think it has a bearing on any of the other stuff we're talking about. But I have Dirty Diana, Billy Jean and a few others on my playlist. Not everyone likes him but I think he was an amazing talent.

Being fair, this whole discussion has gone off topic.:)

[broncofan]

Being fair, this whole discussion has gone off topic.:)
Yeah what is the topic? I haven't even seen the documentary that is the subject of the conversation....

[Laphroaig]

I was a senior in high school when Thriller came out. And I was a rocker back then, so were all my friends, and it was out of the question for anyone in my crew to be a Michael Jackson fan. It would be...embarrassing. To even have a pop album in your collection.

But that didn't matter in 1982, and 1983, and beyond, because you were going to hear Thriller anyway. You were going to see every song in heavy rotation on MTV and you were going to hear it in "A" rotation on multiple radio formats, and you were going to read about it in music magazines and newspapers and see it on the Billboard charts for YEARS. And you were going to get burned out on every single goddamn Michael Jackson mega-hit on that accursed album, even though it wasn't in your music collection at all.

But to this day, when I hear one of those songs, which still happens often, I still recognize the genius of it. It still sounds fresh and inimitable all these decades later, even if it doesn't exactly suit my tastes. It really is some amazing music. And I remember all those fantastic dance moves from the videos. And I still can't deny the amazing talent of Michael Jackson, even though I still think it would be extremely uncool to have any of his albums.

Fortunately I missed the Thriller period and first became aware of him when he returned with the Bad album. Never was a record more aptly named...

[Nick Danger]

Yeah what is the topic? I haven't even seen the documentary that is the subject of the conversation....

Well the topic is "The Last Movie You Watched." I've seen a couple since Leaving Neverland so I've only strayed slightly off-topic. But it's a big and controversial movie so I don't see anything wrong with having a conversation about it.

[broncofan]

Well the topic is "The Last Movie You Watched." I've seen a couple since Leaving Neverland so I've only strayed slightly off-topic. But it's a big and controversial movie so I don't see anything wrong with having a conversation about it.
Fair enough. I originally said the quality of his music doesn't have a bearing on the accusations of child abuse because I like his music but think he did terrible things, not because I don't think we should talk about it.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Stavros;1877135]
Also, neither Elvis or the Beatles were as big as Michael Jackson, who had the distinct advantage of experiencing his career zenith during the MTV era, thereby becoming the most-recognized celebrity on a planet with twice as many people on it as lived during Elvis' heyday. Michael's music cut across all barriers, musical, racial, and political. And if he wanted a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth and couldn't get it, it probably had a lot to do with the fact that he's an American, or black, or maybe the Queen prefers smooth jazz.
There's simply no question that more people on planet Earth could tell you who Michael Jackson is than who Elvis Presley is, or who could name even one of the Beatles (there were 4 of them, you know). So no, you're just wrong about that, Stavros, Michael Jackson is quite possibly STILL the most famous person on the planet.

I have been told, correctly in another thread, not to go 'off topic' so I will end this with a couple of points. Mental Illness is not a well-defined term, and is best not used in Michael Jackson's case, and I note you ignore the difference I have noted between his professional life and his leisure life, neither of which are 'childlike' at all, as the testimony in the film also asserts. As for the Knighthood, honorary Knighthoods to Americans are fairly common, and Jackson seems to have wanted one with a passion when he discovered Steven Spielberg had been endowed with the honour. On this occasion, it seems, Michael Jackson really was being childish and immature.

[Vladimir Putin]

The last three movies I watched:

"A Star Is Born"
"Searching"
"Crazy Rich Asians"

[Nick Danger]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1877193]

I have been told, correctly in another thread, not to go 'off topic' so I will end this with a couple of points. Mental Illness is not a well-defined term, and is best not used in Michael Jackson's case, and I note you ignore the difference I have noted between his professional life and his leisure life, neither of which are 'childlike' at all, as the testimony in the film also asserts. As for the Knighthood, honorary Knighthoods to Americans are fairly common, and Jackson seems to have wanted one with a passion when he discovered Steven Spielberg had been endowed with the honour. On this occasion, it seems, Michael Jackson really was being childish and immature.

Oh yeah well I was told that it was just fine for ME to go off-topic, as long as I don't draw YOU off-topic in the process, Stavros.

A salty leprechaun in a tweed suit told me that.

Also we are not off-topic here. This is a movie thread. We are talking about a movie.

"Off-topic?" Jesus, people on the internet are just like people in the real world - scared to death of The Man. Well, I say what I please, when I please, and where I please. Sometimes I do go off-topic, or say something controversial, and by God any forum moderator who wants to is more than welcome to BAN me from any forum. There are 18 trillion goddamn forums on this internet. Getting banned from 17 trillion of them would give me more time to masturbate and build cars.

[Cerberus]

Trying to bring it back on track - Triple Frontier

[Stavros]

Thief (Michael Mann, 1981)

Thief was I think the first full-lenth feature Mann made, and has what have become trademarks: the city at night, rainswept streets illuminated by rows of street lighing, overhead shots of the city (Chicago, mostly) with intricate networks of buildings; cars moving at speed or gliding by; tough guys on the make, broads who don't wear bras. In this case, the cliche is the independent thief (James Caan) who wants one last big heist to retire in luxury with a wife and child (purchased, as the wife is infertile), and who agrees to do a big job for the mob, with predictable consequences. Nevertheless, the visuals are so good it is still worth watching, as it establishes Mann as one of the best directors of this kind of film. One odd thing that occurred to me, with all the cars, was that at one point I was looking at Caan's cadillac and it looked badly made, whereas I thought the Cadillac had a high reputation. The texbook corrupt cops are a drag, but it is still worth watching, and there are also, according to IMDB a couple of versions of the film. Lastly, I don't think James Caan ever got over being Sonny in The Godfather, he is miles better than fake muscle-men like Sylvia Stallion, or maybe he wasn't offered parts that helped him become a more diverse actor.

[Stavros]

Twilight's Last Gleaming (Robert Aldrich, 1977)

I saw this film in the 1980s at the NFT and was keen to see it again. A rogue General falseley imprisoned, breaks out with three others, seizes control of a nuclear missile silo and demands money and that the US publish a secret NSC memo confirming the military knew the war in Vietnam could not be won and that young men would die to prove to the USSR that the US was capable and willing to sacrifice men to establish their military credibility. Orignally, the novel was concerned with the siege of the silo in return for money, but Aldrich -the scion of the Rockefeller dynasty who disowned him when he went to Hollywood- was a Democrat and in the aftermath of the Pentagon Papers wanted to make a political point. The film is mostly studio based, with exteriors shot in Bavaria, so it has dated in many senses, but it is well written, the acting is very 1960s with vintage actors, and the fate of the President quite extraordinary when you think the action is dated in 1981, more so in the present context. It remains an enjoyable film, but I always feel there is something missing in an Aldrich film.

[Stavros]

Widows (Steve MQueen, 20180
Widows (Euston Films, 1983, Series 1)

Widows is the fourth full-length feature film by Steve McQueen and, in comparison to Hunger, Shame, and Twelve Years a Slave, it is his weakest. The film is a new version of the 1980s drama from the UK (which McQeen watched in his teens), a drama that was at the time reaching audiences of 18 million an episode and concerned the widows of three villains who died in a robbery that went wrong. Inheriting his plans for the robbery of a security van, the widow of gang boss Harry Rawlings recruits the widows of the dead men to re-attempt the robbery while fighting off the efforts of a rival gang to take over Rawling's business. The 1983 drama, which I also watched, for the first time since I saw it, has a largely competent script, low production values, and of the four women, only Ann Mitchell can act, the others being wooden to the point of embarassment (and none went on to greater things, indeed one died of an overdose in LA at the age of 31).

McQueen has replaced the rivalry between two criminal gangs in London by moving the scene to Chicago where the robbery that goes wrong leaves Rawlings' widow liable to the people to whom the money belonged, including corrupt city cops and a rival whose close assciate is trying to get out of crime and into local politics through election to the city council. The robbery and the politics collide as the target is a safe in the politicians house that contains ove $3 million, and as such is one of the many problems with credibility the films has. Cruciallly, instead of the heist being the dramatic core of the film, takes place late on and is lacking in tension. But the films is poorly structured and one can only hope this usually brilliant director returns to form in his next feature.

The one noticeable feature of the film is McQueen's constant playing with opposites: mostly black and white: black woman, white husand; black skin, white sheets. Black woman, white dog. Dark night, bright windows of the Loop; a poster on the wall of Bellini's opera I Capuleti e i Montecchi. White men in a black car, and so on. The photography is good, but the film is a flop.

[Stevie.Thomas]

US

A family's serenity turns to chaos when a group of doppelgangers begins to terrorize them.

[marchbball]

W hat we do in the shadows 1145029Lot's of people are disregarding this movie due to "Lack of plot" or "Poor cinematography".

This isn't supposed to be that sort of movie, it's a mockumentary, done in the style of a documentary.

They have nailed that look perfectly, and the plot doesn't matter in a comedy.
What we do in the shadows
The comedy is great, the deadpan nature of it is hilarious, the jokes are brilliant.

Go in with the open mind that it's not your classic style of comedy.

I think it's a great movie.

[Stavros]

The Shallows (Jaume Collet-Serra, 2016)
Blake Lively surfs on a remote Mexican beach in homage to her dead mother, and for the challenge. She surfs alone, other than two young Mexicans, a seagull and a deadly shark. When the tide is low a rock protrudes in the bay and when the shark arrives for its breakfast, lunch and dinner, surfer girl spends the rest of this mercifully short film (85 minutes) perched on the rock with the seagull that has dislocated a wing, though even when this medical student fixes it the gull remains with her. The shark, when not taking part of her thigh for a snack gorges on the two young Mexicans, and later, and presumably from desperation, the metal bars of the light buoy to which she clings and that through a complex manoeuvre becomes the fatal nemesis of the shark, though why this enormous fish does not leave the bay for the ocean where it can find fresh food, or munch away on a dead whale is not explained. Blake Lively looks great in a bikini, and that is as good as it gets.

The Shallows was on broadcast tv, and I watched it having given up on Searching (Aneesh Chaganty, 2018 ) a film framed entirely through the screen of a laptop. I found this so irritating that I gave up just under half-way through, much as I find it hard t watch films seen through a hand-held camera, like Cloverfield. I understand the reaon why, but the format doesn't work for me.

[Stavros]

The Favorite (Yorgos Lanthimos, 2018 )

If you wonder why the last of the Stuart monarchs has been so forgotten, this film about Queen Anne (queen from 1702-1714) will help, as it is a forgettable film.

Singularity (Robert Kouba, 2017)

With a score of 3.9 on the imdb, this film is so singularly bad I can only concede in shame that I paid £1.50 for it.

The Magnifient Seven (Antoine Fuqua, 2016)
They can remake Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954) seven times but it will never be magnificent as the original still is, whereas in this 2016 case, it is not even magnaminous, just maggoty.

[Stavros]

If Beale Street Could Talk (Barry Jenkins, 2018 )
And if it could talk it would, like Baldwin, be angrier, more tense, more aggressive than this tepid if worthy attempt.

[Stavros]

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

This sad, pathetic fantasy is tedious to watch. The script is flat, almost lifeless compared to the director's first two features, and the acting either over the top or matter of fact. The ending, which I am not to disclose, comes after two hours of what some consider a homage to the Western, network tv shows, and 'Hollywood' in the era when the Studio system ended and actors were independent and MGM stopped making musicals and so on. Who cares? Tarantino cares, and to some extent he matches the scenes from the Westerns being filmed with a scene at Spahn's Movie Ranch where the Manson family watch Cliff Booth stride up 'Main Street' toward, not the Saloon, but an old house. But once you see it the comparison becomes trite and overall has no other role in the movie. At a party at the Playboy Mansion, Steve McQueen shares a joint with a young woman, but is played by Damian Lewis in a blonde wig that makes him look not like Steve but an old Hollywood Queen, and is seen no more.

The fundamental problem is that the fading star of TV's Bounty Hunt and numerous Westerns, Rick Dalton, played by Leonardo di Caprio is a drunk, and as interesting as a drunk, which is not very much, just as his boyfriend Cliff is the Stunt Man who is closer in real life to the mean bounty hunting cowboy he lives for.
That's about it, other than to suggest Tarantino has a problem with women, but that is a discussion for another day if anyone can be bothered.
Oh, I forgot, just as Tarantino usually names characters after gay porn stars, there is a real 'Thick' Rick Dalton, a 'twink' with a thick cock who does gay porn. Go Figure.

[Torris]

Re: Once Upon a Time in HW

Too much DiCaprio, not enough Pitt. At least a half hour too long. Fabulous 70’s fashion and the usual killer soundtrack

Wouldn’t you have loved to imagine a Charles Bronson revenge fantasy on the Manson Family and all those middle class girls giving in to murder getting the tables turned on them? All because Manson couldn’t cut it as a musician and went to the wrong house by mistake (record producer Terry Melcher)

I found DiCaprio’s machinations tedious but Pitt epitomizes cool.

[Torris]

W hat we do in the shadows 1145029Lot's of people are disregarding this movie due to "Lack of plot" or "Poor cinematography".

This isn't supposed to be that sort of movie, it's a mockumentary, done in the style of a documentary.

.

As much as I loved the movie (surprisingly violent for a mockumentary), I like rhe FX TV series even more.

[Stavros]

Re: Once Upon a Time in HW

Too much DiCaprio, not enough Pitt. At least a half hour too long. Fabulous 70’s fashion and the usual killer soundtrack


Small point: 1960s fashion, not 1970s -film concerns events that took place in 1969. But yes, at least 30 minutes too long.

[Cereal Escapist]

Finding Dory.

It was no Finding Nemo!!!

[Stavros]

Foxtrot (Samul Maoz, 2017)

This Israeli film concerns the family of a soldier on duty at a remote road block somewhere in Israel (looks like it is either the north or the far south). Although the core of the film is a mix-up in the identification of a dead soldier, and the boredom of four guys manning a remote road block the films makes some subtle, and not so subtle points about contemporary Israel -the accommodation of the soldiers sinking into the mud; the solitary camel that won't go away; the atheists in Tel-Aviv who smoke dope. The script is fine, the acting good, the direction to be admired. The title refers to a dance whose steps always take you forward and then back to where you began, with a exquisite foxtrot danced at the checkpoint by a soldier, one of the highlights of the film.

The Flood (Anthony Woodley, 2019)

The film may star Lena Headey and Iain Glen from Game of Thrones, but the excitement ends there. A worthy film about an asylum seeker that is well made and well acted but is predictable from the start and never really sparks into life.

[blackchubby38]

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)

This sad, pathetic fantasy is tedious to watch. The script is flat, almost lifeless compared to the director's first two features, and the acting either over the top or matter of fact. The ending, which I am not to disclose, comes after two hours of what some consider a homage to the Western, network tv shows, and 'Hollywood' in the era when the Studio system ended and actors were independent and MGM stopped making musicals and so on. Who cares? Tarantino cares, and to some extent he matches the scenes from the Westerns being filmed with a scene at Spahn's Movie Ranch where the Manson family watch Cliff Booth stride up 'Main Street' toward, not the Saloon, but an old house. But once you see it the comparison becomes trite and overall has no other role in the movie. At a party at the Playboy Mansion, Steve McQueen shares a joint with a young woman, but is played by Damian Lewis in a blonde wig that makes him look not like Steve but an old Hollywood Queen, and is seen no more.

The fundamental problem is that the fading star of TV's Bounty Hunt and numerous Westerns, Rick Dalton, played by Leonardo di Caprio is a drunk, and as interesting as a drunk, which is not very much, just as his boyfriend Cliff is the Stunt Man who is closer in real life to the mean bounty hunting cowboy he lives for.
That's about it, other than to suggest Tarantino has a problem with women, but that is a discussion for another day if anyone can be bothered.
Oh, I forgot, just as Tarantino usually names characters after gay porn stars, there is a real 'Thick' Rick Dalton, a 'twink' with a thick cock who does gay porn. Go Figure.

Okay, I'll ask the question.

Why do you think Tarantino has a problem with women?

[dns4809]

Hidden Figures

[Stavros]

Okay, I'll ask the question.
Why do you think Tarantino has a problem with women?

It is true that women play a prominent role in Jackie Brown and Kill Bill, but neither are films that offer much to the audience other than senseless violence ripped from Asian films, or the failed attempt to 'shaft' Shaft with Jackie Brown, a film about survivors who have no moral right to survive. Tarantino's moral confusion is a major weakness in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood where there is not one substantial role for women -that women were crucial to the identity and maintenance of the 'Manson family' is beyond doubt but one of the many aspects of them that Tarantino leaves out even in the scenes shot at Spahn's Ranch where they appear to be hippies livin' a life or free love and getting high.
Mia Wallace has a prominent role in Pulp Fiction, but the film is a sequence of episodes in which each star has his or her own episode in which to dominate. I can think of only one loving relationship between a man and a woman in Tarantino's films -Butch and Fabienne in Pulp Fiction- as even with Django Unchained, the rescue of the lost wife is merely a plot device, the wife has no substantial part to play in the film and Django's relationship wth his 'daddy' and White Saviour Dr King Schultz (a dentist, note -hard things in the mouth) is the driver of the film. Jackie Brown may have a love element in the relationship between Jackie and Max Cherry but it doesn't get beyond a kiss, and anyway the sex between men and women in his films is rare, but note when it happens: anal sex in Jackie Brown (de Niro and Fonda), sex with a comatose Uma Thurman in Kill Bill; but gay sex is prominent: anal sex between men in Pulp Fiction, whle the men waving guns at each other in Reservoir Dogs are basically willy-waving in search of blow, and come, aka bullets.
I don't know if that satisfies you as an answer, but it is the best I can do without having to endure his fims all over again, and admit I don't recall a lot of The Hateful Eight or Inglourious Basterds, two forgettable films.

[blackchubby38]

It is true that women play a prominent role in Jackie Brown and Kill Bill, but neither are films that offer much to the audience other than senseless violence ripped from Asian films, or the failed attempt to 'shaft' Shaft with Jackie Brown, a film about survivors who have no moral right to survive. Tarantino's moral confusion is a major weakness in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood where there is not one substantial role for women -that women were crucial to the identity and maintenance of the 'Manson family' is beyond doubt but one of the many aspects of them that Tarantino leaves out even in the scenes shot at Spahn's Ranch where they appear to be hippies livin' a life or free love and getting high.
Mia Wallace has a prominent role in Pulp Fiction, but the film is a sequence of episodes in which each star has his or her own episode in which to dominate. I can think of only one loving relationship between a man and a woman in Tarantino's films -Butch and Fabienne in Pulp Fiction- as even with Django Unchained, the rescue of the lost wife is merely a plot device, the wife has no substantial part to play in the film and Django's relationship wth his 'daddy' and White Saviour Dr King Schultz (a dentist, note -hard things in the mouth) is the driver of the film. Jackie Brown may have a love element in the relationship between Jackie and Max Cherry but it doesn't get beyond a kiss, and anyway the sex between men and women in his films is rare, but note when it happens: anal sex in Jackie Brown (de Niro and Fonda), sex with a comatose Uma Thurman in Kill Bill; but gay sex is prominent: anal sex between men in Pulp Fiction, whle the men waving guns at each other in Reservoir Dogs are basically willy-waving in search of blow, and come, aka bullets.
I don't know if that satisfies you as an answer, but it is the best I can do without having to endure his fims all over again, and admit I don't recall a lot of The Hateful Eight or Inglourious Basterds, two forgettable films.

What Tarantino was trying to do with Once Upon Time In Hollywood was to remove the horror and mystique that surrounds the Manson family and show them for what they actually were. A bunch of girls with daddy issues and inept home invaders. He also made the movie to remind me people that Sharon Tate was a person and not just a murder victim.

When it comes Jackie Brown and Kill Bill, while its true that Tarantino pays homage/rips off other genres of film, I don't know what else the audience should have expected from them. Also Pam Grier was starring in blaxploitation films before she starred in Jackie Brown. So if anything it was an attempt to make his version of Foxy Brown.

Tarantino films deal with crime, violent periods in time, and the darker side of the human psyche. So I don't expect to see loving relationships between men and women in them. That doesn't mean he has a problem with women.

Finally, that wasn't anal sex in Pulp Fiction. That was rape.

[Torris]

Hidden Figures


That movie could have benefited from some gratuitous Janelle Monae nudity

[joesocalif]

Shin Godzilla 2016
The absolute best

[african1]

Last movie I watched was: Chanel Santini: TS Superstar

https://images03-evilangel.gammacdn.com/movies/74309/74309_chanel_santini_ts_superstar_front_400x625.jp g

[Stavros]

Last movie I watched was: Chanel Santini: TS Superstar

https://images03-evilangel.gammacdn.com/movies/74309/74309_chanel_santini_ts_superstar_front_400x625.jp g

Looks good...but not showing at my local Vue cinema...we rarely get those radical, indy films...

[Stavros]

What Tarantino was trying to do with Once Upon Time In Hollywood was to remove the horror and mystique that surrounds the Manson family and show them for what they actually were. A bunch of girls with daddy issues and inept home invaders. He also made the movie to remind me people that Sharon Tate was a person and not just a murder victim.
When it comes Jackie Brown and Kill Bill, while its true that Tarantino pays homage/rips off other genres of film, I don't know what else the audience should have expected from them. Also Pam Grier was starring in blaxploitation films before she starred in Jackie Brown. So if anything it was an attempt to make his version of Foxy Brown.
Tarantino films deal with crime, violent periods in time, and the darker side of the human psyche. So I don't expect to see loving relationships between men and women in them. That doesn't mean he has a problem with women.

Finally, that wasn't anal sex in Pulp Fiction. That was rape.
All fair points, particularly the last one, where I stand corrected and agree it was rape, my apologies to all.

I appreciate a lot of the references in his films, but also find them irritating as it often looks like he wants the audience to congratulate him for being so clever, though I don't get the music references as they are, to me, obscure. In the end I can take or leave his films, Tarantino is just not the kind of director who bears comparison with the auteurs I can't live without, but he may be making films which are more purely American than most of his contemporaries, but is this the American people want to live in? And how many Americans are involved in crime at any level?
I always appreciate your intelligent comment, (and corrections!)...thanks.

[HbgDon]

IT: Chapter 2.

[Stavros]

Knives Out (Rian Johnson, 2019)
An entertaining way to spend a couple of hours not worrying about the mortgage, Boris Johnson or the latest complaint from America's No 1 Liar about light-bulbs and the number of times Americans flush their toilets.
References abound, from Agatha Christie to Game of Thrones, from Hitchcock to CSI, and there is some sort of crackle and fizz to the script which is well performed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson in particular. I am not sure if Daniel Craig has mastered a Southern Accent or if he intended to, but he is ok and unlike Southern Gentlemen, does not shave.
The film tries to match Wes Anderson's snap, crackle and pop films and fails, indeed, one wonders if Anderson would have done a better job. But hey, it was ok, and I am not complaining about the £4.99 ($6.56) it cost to buy a ticket, though the Vue chain may want to review the tea they use for customers, as the tea I bought was tasteless. How hard can it be?

[holzz]

The Iron Lady.

[Lovecox]

Just saw MIDSOMMAR. I really enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to whatever else Ari Aster delivers in the horror field because I also loved HEREDITARY.

[Stavros]

​The Irishman (Martin Scorsese, 2019)
at the beginning of his career Scorsese made a film- Mean Streets- about local mafiosi and wannabe mafiosi that was funny and tragic, fast and fluent. At the end of his career Scorsese makes a film about the guys at the top, grim and inevitable, slow and garbled. That it concerns real people from history- Frank Sheeran and Jimmy Hoffa- does not add credibility or depth as the claims made, on the assassinations of JFK and Hoffa, are either not true, or have not been verified as true. The overwhelming theme, of loyalty and betrayal is so embedded in Mafia tales as to be predictable here, but the film, with a stodgy, repetitive script, becomes a miserable three and a half hours and was, without doubt a waste of my time.
If this is Scorsese's last film, he went out with a whimper, not a bang. At least I did not have to pay for it seeing it on someone else's Netflix account.

[cdcyn]

Ella Hollywood and Daisy Tailor have awsome sex in this movie! A must see for shemale fans!!

https://i111.fastpic.ru/big/2019/1218/7c/bbbed57e66ba32585f1d868c8836297c.jpeg

cdcyn

[Torris]

Re:Irishman.

45 minutes too long. Pacino was unbelievable as Hoffa. Nicholson did a much better job. Pesci was the best of rhe 3 main stays.

Very disappinted since Goodfellas is my favorite movie of all time. And Casino is in my Top 10 of all time

Robbie Robertson usually does a great soundtrack, but not this time. Can’t recall a single song.

The movie is as tired as the 4 senior citizens involved. Kind of depressing viewing experience.

[Cereal Escapist]

Last movie for myself: Uncut Gems
I was surprised as to how much i liked this film and actually wanted the sleezeball Sandler to get over on everyone. He plays the role unlike others he has had before and, as a new yorker who bought his wife's ring on 47th street, he really is convincing.

Last actual movie: Moana
My daughter decided she had to watch it before going to sleep last night because I left Disney+ after watching the Mandolorian finale.

[Stavros]

Storyville: 'Jonestown: Terror in the Jungle' (2019)

This two part film (each around 80 minutes long) takes the viewer through the history of Jim Jones and Jonestown from its origins in Indiana to the jungle of Guyana where a mass suicide/murder took place that has fascinated or puzzled people since it happened in 1978. The film is based on archive footage of Jones throughout his career, with the compelling evidence of those involved, including two of his 'sons'. On the one hand, it is an object lesson in the ability of charismatic individuals to persuade people to believe what they want to believe, on the other it exposes the lies and the cruelty that enabled Jones to survive as long as he did.
It exposes the lie of faith-healing: a woman with a broken leg who can walk had first been drugged, then told when she came round she had fallen and broken the leg she now saw in plaster, only it wasn't broken so of course she could walk and run when the cast was taken off. Bu there is no clearly stated explanation of what Jones believed, whether it was religious or political, and most of the footage consists of Jones shouting and screaming. There is also no deeper look into the multi-racial claims of the People's Temple and whether Jones sincerely believed in de-segregation of just found it a convenient tool to build his empire.
It also made me wonder why in the US there are so many 'preachers' -many of whom are self-invented or self-ordained- whose careers are based on large scale meetings where they bark, bleat, shout and scream as if they were rock stars inflaming the audience into rapture, rather than religious men delivering sermons on the moral basis of daily life as a preparation for salvation.
Deluded into thinking they were going to live a better life, his flock went to Guyana with him, only to discover that it is actually hard to produce food and drink on a daily basis for nearly 1,000 men, women and children without first investigating the fertility of the land chosen for the Promised Land. A third weakness being the absence of any detailed explanation why the government of Guyana allowed this ridiculous cretin into their country to create a 'state within a state' that they eventually had to deal with.
But fascinating and worth it if you can access the BBC iPlayer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000d27r/storyville-jonestown-terror-in-the-jungle-episode-1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000d28j/storyville-jonestown-terror-in-the-jungle-episode-2

[Stavros]

Midsommar (Ari Aster 2019)

A stylish film with exquisite detail that concerns the visit some Americans make to a Pagan festival in Sweden, even if three of the main characters are either English or Irish born in America. There are some scenes which I suppose some might find horrific, but you need to buy into the commune living on the basis of ancient rites to sit through to its predictable end. It treads a fine line between intriguing and plain daft, but it is just a film, detail not equalling depth, various homages to Bergman and Tarkovsky which some might find pretentious, but at least I managed to accept it and admire it for its quality -7/10.

[Torris]

Last movie for myself: Uncut Gems
I was surprised as to how much i liked this film and actually wanted the sleezeball Sandler to get over on everyone. He plays the role unlike others he has had before and, as a new yorker who bought his wife's ring on 47th street, he really is convincing.

.

I also thought he was terrific as a manic thrill junkie. I wonder if exposing the seedy underbelly of the NYC Jewish diamond trade hurt the film come award season.

[Stavros]

I also thought he was terrific as a manic thrill junkie. I wonder if exposing the seedy underbelly of the NYC Jewish diamond trade hurt the film come award season.
The diamond trade has had a bad reputation for as long as I have been alive, and that includes the blood diamond scene where, for example, Robert Mugabe and his Generals helped themselves to whatever they could grab in the Democratic Republic of the Congo when the situation there was worse than it might be now. Lebanese merchants were instrumental in facilitating the flow of uncut diamonds from West Africa to Israel, it is a global problem, and these days I am not even sure if Jews dominate the trade in Hatton Garden in London as once they might have done. Other than their use in medical instruments and other industries, I have understood that diamonds are useful, but as ornaments for the human body or an insurance against divorce, no, don't understand that.

[broncofan]

The diamond trade has had a bad reputation for as long as I have been alive, and that includes the blood diamond scene where, for example, Robert Mugabe and his Generals helped themselves to whatever they could grab in the Democratic Republic of the Congo when the situation there was worse than it might be now. Lebanese merchants were instrumental in facilitating the flow of uncut diamonds from West Africa to Israel, it is a global problem, and these days I am not even sure if Jews dominate the trade in Hatton Garden in London as once they might have done. Other than their use in medical instruments and other industries, I have understood that diamonds are useful, but as ornaments for the human body or an insurance against divorce, no, don't understand that.
The movie started with a scene in Ethiopia but for the most part it didn't include too much controversial information about the acquisition of diamonds or in this case opals. What could have been controversial, but really didn't generate much controversy was that the main character was Jewish and a hustler who pawned things that weren't his, gambled with money that wasn't his, and was mostly a self-destructive, selfish loser.

I agree with cereal's review. I enjoyed it and found it to be a thrilling ride. If I had to guess, I think the lack of awards is probably because it was not a film for everybody. Its reviews among critics were generally very good whereas the audience response was mixed on most sites that track these things. If you don't know anything about basketball, don't know who the weekend is, or don't like loud movies with profanity you might not enjoy it.

[waterbed]

Star Wars 9 - It Coulda Been a Contender...

Went in with low expectations. Left thinking "I can leave star wars behind now".

It's just getting money for the curiosity factor of George Lucas having declared Loooooong Ago that it was supposed to be a 9 part story, so we want to see it wrapped up at the end of 9.

It wasn't done in service to the story setup in the first 6 movies, it was done in service to the new characters and new merchandising, and was rushed through, and could have been 25minutes shorter. A sad day for lovers of stories and movies to see this rich property turned into a business opportunity. The original 3 had enough story and character to get people to care enough to want merchandise. This one just seems like a merchandise maker with little thought to character developement or story telling...

[steviedresses]

Got to make multiple posts because I've seen multiple good movies lately:

Star Wars 9. eh. Ok. Not sure what we expected. Wasn't great, wasn't terrible. At least they wrapped up who the heck Rey was.

Knives Out. Man that was fun. Actual character development and old fashioned movie making. Really enjoyed this movie.

Once Upon a Time. Again, just a fun movie. And how in the heck to you make a movie that is leading up to a horrible heinous crime fun? You let Quentin rewrite history that's how.

1917 The Great War was fought in black & white, right? But from the opening scene the movie reminds us that these were real people, fighting a gruesome, awful, war in vivid technicolor with real blood and guts being spilled. Aside from the historical aspect the film is a must see for every movie fan to witness this fine ONE LONG SHOT.

Wow. How did they pull that off?

[waterbed]

Star Wars 9 - wasn't great wasn't terrible, 3.6 out of 15,000

Knives Out - it's on my "to watch" list

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood - another tarantino movie I have no interest in watching, too much controversy over showing Bruce Lee wrong, among other things. I think he lost whatever touch he used to have.

1917 - GREAT movie, it will win awards, I didn't like some parts of it that distracted from the dialogue. The cuts between takes are there if you watch for them, like going through a dark doorway early on. It DOES feel like one really long shot though :)

Fans of 1917 should definitely watch Peter Jacksons 2018 "They Shall Not Grow Old"

[fab]

Just amazing, so much better than Star Wars. Go & see it.https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5ddc5d83ef7cd600067ba728/960x0.jpg?fit=scale

[Stavros]

I haven't seen 1917, but most of the flms on release now are better than Star Wars, in fact, most films are better than Star Wars, except maybe Star Trek. Hard to choose between those two 'franchises', but best option is to opt out.

[Stavros]

For Sama (Waad al-Kateab & Edward Watts, 2019)

This often uncensored documentary concerns a young journalist and her doctor husband who choose to stay in Eastern Aleppo during the siege of 2016. It documents the aftermath of bombings, and the birth of her daughter Sama. The film is shot mostly by Waad, some if it appearing on the web; other scenes appear to be taken from archive footage, or possibly a drone, as with the last shot in the film. It is often uncompromising and distressing, and is the sort of film one should see if one wants to see the true horror of war, though in the midst of all this carnage there is a truly astonishing scene with a baby, a cry of hope in the midst of despair.
There are gaps- al-Kateab supports the Arab Spring in Syria, but we don't know why other than basic student protest, and we never really know what the couple's political background or their aims might be, but there does not seem to be any link to Daesh or Islamic extremists in the hospital where her husband, Hamza works. It also appears to be the case that Hamza broke off one relationship to marry Waad, but this isn't really clear though she says in the early part of the film that when they met he was in a long term relationship. The couple and their children now live in the UK, of their parents and wider family we know nothing.
This film is currently available on the UK's Channel 4 -I don't know if it is available outside the country, this is the link-
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/for-sama/on-demand/66428-001

[Stavros]

The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973)
I had not seen this film for years, and recall being unimpressed when I saw it, probably in the 1970s. I saw it in the shop on DVD at a good price and bought it. The film is much better than I recall, and in particular its use of music, which a lot of the time does not intrude on the drama. There is a lot wrong with the film, as there is no explanation for the means wherbey the Devil inhabits Regan's body, other than some playing around the a Ouija board which, if such things really did communicate with dead grannies and the devil would never have gone on sale. It is implied that the Satanic statuette Father Merrin brings back from Iraq is the key, much as in The French Connection it is the import of drugs from France that sparks the drama in the film, and its deaths. However, in the prelude to the latest DVD release where Friedkin says the film is about faith, the main character other than Regan, is Father Karras -inexplicably of Greek heritage for a Jesuit, and the weakest character in the film-who early on in the flm confesses to another that he has lost his faith, but ultimately at the climax of the exorcism shrieks 'take me! take me!' to the demon who, perhaps sensing a weak man, does that, and both then head off into the unknown. It is still worth watching.
Friedkin has made some of the best films you will ever see, The French Connection (1971) being the most obvious; and in more recent years Killer Joe (2011) which will change forever what you think a chicken drumstick is. Then there are the controversies and the turkeys so he has had an uneven career, but The Exorcist will remain one his most memorable films.

[Stavros]

First Love (Takashi Miike, 2019) -in Japanese Hatsukoi, there are other films called First Love).

Those familiar with Miike's films will know his families fractured from without are often contrasted with Yakuza families fracturing from within. In this film, the Yakuza family fractures through betrayal and a collision with a Chinese syndicate, with the two lovers caught between them, though there is little chemistry between them. The mash-up at the climax of the film is delirious and hilarious in the way Miike orchestrates his violence. Though lacking the eccentricity of Gozu, or the seriousness of the Triad trilogy -Shinjuku Triad Society, Rainy Dog and Ley Lines- First Love after a slow start has that momentum and even joy that is lacking in one of his lesser mimics, Tarantino.

[Stavros]

Contagion (Steven Soderbergh, 2011)

It may seem an obvious choice for terrestrial tv to show this, but I had not seen it before and for the most part it is a sober effort at delineating what can happen when systems break down, though so far we have been spared the violence if not the 'supermarket mania' that has left shelves bereft of rice, pasta and toilet paper. The last scene in the film begs questions about the behaviour of the cook, but perhaps that snap decision for a snapshot underlines how vulnerable we are.
On the other hand, in real life as far as Wuhan goes, how many Chinese people eat bat burgers and puppy pies?

[Stavros]

I have seen quite a few films on TV ad DVD but can't remember some of them and others I have commented on before. Two I had not seen before are:

Allied (Robert Zemeckis, 2016)
This film about a Canadian Air Force pilot and a member of the French Resistance who fall in love during an assignment in Morocco ought to be thrilling, but the plot twist is not so much on a knife edge as a wet rag on the floor. Brad Pitt shows a lack of interest in his own character, so cannot credibly be interested in his wife, so the film limps towards its who cares? end and that is all there is to say about it.

Beast (Michael Pearce, 2017)
This short but brilliant film begins with the (Irish) actor Jessie Buckley describing a whale in captivity going mad and harming itself, crushed by the captivity that makes a mockery of the freedom of the oceans whales ought to enjoy, just as the young woman's captivity is expressed in the insular character of Jersey and her family, though the freedom provided by her lover turns out to be another form of captivity, with tragic consequences. The script doesn't do too much, the metaphors and symbols nicely judged, from the use of a potato field to the cliffs of the island. The acting is finely balanced, and even with some 'sensational' elements is worth seeing.

[holzz]

A Clockwork Orange - a wicked satire on criminal justice.

Cromwell - as a history buff (partly because of the Stuart era) I loved it. I always wondered how Richard Harris played Cromwell when he seriously FUCKED UP Ireland. Even now, Irish people hate Cromwell and to be fair witht good reason.

Eyes Wide Shut - good film with a weird plot. David Icke reckons it's a window into the conspiracy world of the 1%, who knows? There are secret sex clubs out there, so anything is possible.

[Stavros]

I am not your Negro (Raoul Peck, 2016)

This aired on BBC-2 last night, and is a fierce examination of race as James Baldwin saw it through his friendships with Malik el-Shabbaz and Martin Luther King, in what became an uncompleted study (Baldwin died in 1987).

The film juxtaposes archive film and photography featuring Baldwin himself as well as a variety of Black and White sources (cinema, tv, photography), with contemporary footage the aim of which is to beg the question -what, in reality, has changed in the last 100 years? Baldwin might interject- 'in the last 400 years'.

The film is driven by the rage and resentment that marks (some might argue, mars) Baldwin's writing, often for good reason, but while there is no doubting his sincerity and eloquence, el-Shabazz and King both created political agendas to deal with race that Baldwin did not, perhaps his greatest weakness. The Atlantic review of the film criticizes the absence of any discussion of Baldwn's sexual preference, though I am not sure it would fit with the politics of the film, although there is one moment when the allure of Black movie stars -Belafonte and Poitier- is simultaneously there and denied.

The film presents uncensored and startling- indeed, distressing- footage of violence, mostly law enforcement - in one shot a Black woman on the ground while a large policeman bores his knee into her neck; in another, another Black woman all but crushed to the ground by a ferocious policeman as if on the football field- and humiliation: the shot of a white man using a Black man as a chair; multiple shots of White Power signs with the Nazi logo held aloft during Civil Rights disturbances in the South- all of it suggesting we live in an age where censored or edited footage of real events protects us, or conceals from us the hideous truth.

At his most eloquent best, is the moment on the Dick Cavett show not long after the assassination of Malik el-Shabazz when Baldwin says, and it could, maybe should be written in Bold for out times:

All your buried corpses now begin to speak...

[Stavros]

All the Money in the World IRidley Scott, 2017)

This film covers the same real life drama as the TV drama Trust, directed by Danny Boyle (2018), but is not as good. It is not just the time a series has to develop character, but the superior acting. Michelle Williams and Christopher Plummer are fine, Mark Wahlberg is not, and there is a lack of drive in the film.

A review of the real events that happened (spoiler alert) can be found here-
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2018-10-22/trust-bbc-j-paul-getty-kidnapping-true-story-history/

[Nikka]

terminator.....

[morim]

"The In-Laws" (the original one from 1979) with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.
The greatest movie of all times!!!
I try to watch it once a week (and it will never bore me)

[bryanferryfan2]

Birds of Prey

[Stavros]

Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019)

On the one hand I could try to understand this as a prequel to Batman, the film containing the Wayne family at a critical point for a young Bruce. On the other hand, the story does not offer a link other than of nihilistic violence and social chaos in Gotham City. An attempt to link the Joker's behaviour with childhood trauma is not made effectively, so the Joker just comes across as a frustrated man who takes out his resentment on others, even if they do not deserve it. Joaquin Phoenix gives a strong performance, let down by some predictable scenes toward the end; one hopes he has had a good meal since making the film. de Niro is, well de Niro, some of the photography is superb, but the real star is the score by the Icelandic composer Hildur Guðnadóttir, as heard in the clip below, and also for the drama series Chernobyl ('Evacuation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjEcqPx0EwE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGID4ZhF45I

[Cereal Escapist]

The wife made me watch Hamilton on Disney+ even though she forced me to sit through the play twice when we still lived in NY.

It is no better the 3rd time around.

[Stavros]

Queen and Slim (Melina Matsoukas, 2019)

I bought this DVD without knowing anything about the film, as I don't recall it being reviewed last year, though Google informs me it was. The reviews in the Guardian don't do it justice, it is much worse than they claim.
The film appears to have some relevance to contemporary issues in real life that have been provoked by the lethal use of force in the US by law enforcement officers on Black people, and the incident that sparks the narrative drive of this film seems sadly all too real (according one of the extras on the disc, the incident was filmed in Cleveland, Ohio when it was -15 degrees! and Daniel Kaluuya imrprovised the line about it being cold, and it was!)

The problem is that there is no chemistry between the two leads, one of whom cannot act, who also have to work with a feeble script. I lost interest in them and their plight before the half-way point, by which time it was clear from its cliches how the film would develop and end, from the 'safe houses' en route (with, at least a welcome appearance by Indya Moore), the breakaway visit to the graveyard; the sexual connection badly filmed and embarrassing as these scenes are these days, to the airstrip in Florida (but why Cuba?).

Incredibly, the director claims these two peope were modellled on Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, presumably because Mork and Mindy were white, even if they did have a more believable relationship. This is a first feature film for the director who has made over 60 shorts and music videos; on the basis of this film, her competent directing needs to be firmed up with better scrpts, and a more creative approach to contemporary issues, if that is what she wants to make films about. Cliches should be effective if they are based on real life; to repeat cliches from other movies in this case is just laziness and a lack of imagination. 2/10 for effort.

I am not sure, but before Indya Moore began to appear in numerous feature films and TV dramas (Pose, being the most obvious), the Italian Eva Robins may have notched up more appearances, and not as a transgendered character (which I think Robins was in two films), there being no hint in this film that Moore is playing a transgendered character. I think this is an advance that is worthy of recognition, not in the triumphal sense, but to acknowledge that is possible to get an acting job based on talent rather than 'minority' box-ticking.

[sukumvit boy]

Shall We Dance
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_We_Dance%3F_(2004_film))https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_We_Dance%3F_(2004_film)
If you are in the mood for a little light hearted entertainment right now, this is well done . I found it delightfull . And who knew that Stanley Tucci could dance?!
That reminds me of the shock I had the first time I saw Christopher Walken dance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCDIYvFmgW8

[holzz]

star trek beyond.

[Stavros]

S
That reminds me of the shock I had the first time I saw Christopher Walken dance.


A delightful shock, and while I can't dance, I can sit in a chair and fall asleep with great composure...

[Stavros]

Ad Astra (James Grey, 2019)

It took two attempts for me to endure this film, as I fell asleep the first time around. It is slow, very slow, and because he has suppressed his emotions, the lead character -in fact, the only character in the film- talks quiet and slow, and the one moment he erupts in emotion you cant hear it because he is wailing in his space suit. There is a profound message in the film, if you think the conclusion that there are no aliens and we are alone in the Universe is profound. I like sci-fi films, but this one is tepid, underwhelming, slowy paced and without characters in depth or diversity.

[tao1kiku]

Extraction (2020). A combination of Hollywood and Bollywood efforts staring Chris Hemsly. Quite alot of action and to me, well done.

[Cereal Escapist]

I unfortunately have three meh reviews as I saw 3 movies in the last 3 days

1. greyhound.
tom hanks has not acted in a movie in over 10 years. he is the same person, movie after movie and it is tiring. he sucks as an action star and the rest of the cast is lame. the story is not compelling and I wasted my time on this dreck.

2. guns akimo
the last act of the movie is tolerable but it devolves into something far less than it promises by the end. the first 2/3 of the movie drag a lot and the gimmick of having guns screwed to your hands is pointless. other movies tried this formula better and did it better. better than greyhound but still a waste of time.

3. the old guard
what promise this had but it ended up being part telanovella, part highlander and part every other movie where the business man wants immortality. lame and while the least waste of time since the action is good, there is NO mystery to the story and you see the twist a mile away even if you never read the comic. It does not deserve the praise it is getting but as of right now, for the last 3 movies I watched, it was the most tolerable.

[danoblue]

Enter The Dragon from the new Criterion Bruce Lee box set

[Stavros]

Am I right in thinking that Bruce Lee, for all his pioneering work in making Martial Arts films mainstream that before occupied a niche, is in fact a crude mover compared to the more balletic versions that have appeared in the wake of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Or is it the case that the more recent MA films are too pretty and that Lee has it about right? It is not a genre I am that keen on, though I have enjoyed films such as Crouching Tiger film, House of Flying Daggers, Zatoichi, Transporter...years ago I knew a MA fanatic who insisted King Hu's The Fate of Lee Khan was one of the best films ever made, yet when I saw it a few yeas back I was not that impressed -maybe it looked better in the late 1970s than in the 21st c? Or maybe I just didn't get it?

[CORVETTEDUDE]

"Vantage Point"... Weird flick about a Presidential assassination/abduction plot.

[Cereal Escapist]

"Vantage Point"... Weird flick about a Presidential assassination/abduction plot.

I really wanted to like vantage point as I do enjoy movies that have time line fluctuations and various points of view but I think, at the end of the day, the style and filming gimmick took center stage over the plot of the movie. Too much attention was paid to making a slick movie rather than a compelling story.

Also, it is weird to think that this movie introduced the term POTUS to the masses as apparently before that most people did not know the term.

[Chiba5]

Ralph Bakshi's Hey Good Lookin'

[ceejay100]

Midway - the story of the WW2 struggle between the US and Japan for control of the Pacfic Ocean, culminating in the battle of Midway

[setterman]

Frozen. Don't judge me.

[Stavros]

Frozen. Don't judge me.

Did your mum take you? Or was it your TS Filipina girlfriend? They like that movie as much as they like Jollibee...

[sukumvit boy]

Frozen. Don't judge me.
LOL , I Love animation . Just purchased season 4 of Futurama , one of my favorites. My GF hates animation and I was surprised when she told me she loves Futurama!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama
https://wizardworld.com/wizard/futurama-is-coming-to-syfy-now-can-it-get-another-season

[Stavros]

Elle (Paul Verhoeven, 2016)

This aired on tv last week.
Isabelle Huppert may be one of France's finest actors, but even she cannot rescue this film from the small mountain of trash that Verhoeven has made all for himself. I understand those who argue his 'greatness' is misunderstood, because he is above all other things, a satirist, hence the 're-appraisal' of Showgirls (1995), and the claim that Starship Troopers (1997) is a satire on the Third Reich.

The problem is the truly dismal scripts, and the lack of cinematic intelligence in his films -and what seems to me to be a deeply confused idea of what both femle and make sexuality is, rather than what he wants it to be. To me his films are superficial, and wiithout interest.

[danoblue]

Ghidorah, The Three Headed-Monster from the Criterion Godzilla box set

[Torris]

Elle (Paul Verhoeven, 2016)

This aired on tv last week.
Isabelle Huppert may be one of France's finest actors, but even she cannot rescue this film from the small mountain of trash that Verhoeven has made all for himself. I understand those who argue his 'greatness' is misunderstood, because he is above all other things, a satirist, hence the 're-appraisal' of Showgirls (1995), and the claim that Starship Troopers (1997) is a satire on the Third Reich.



Last summer I read Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. It played down the fascist element which is what made the movie so compelling. How easy militarism can lead to totalitarianism if the youth embrace it.

The book was more about the regimented military life and the camaraderie between soldiers.

The movie is one of my top five films of all time. Ins spite of some truly horrid acting by the two leads, Johnny Rico and Carmen

[Torris]

"Vantage Point"... Weird flick about a Presidential assassination/abduction plot.

Have you seen Warren Beatty’s Parallax View?

[Stavros]

Last summer I read Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. It played down the fascist element which is what made the movie so compelling. How easy militarism can lead to totalitarianism if the youth embrace it.

The book was more about the regimented military life and the camaraderie between soldiers.

The movie is one of my top five films of all time. Ins spite of some truly horrid acting by the two leads, Johnny Rico and Carmen


You make fair points, but maybe this is also a 'Verhoeven' thing: there is always something wrong with his flicks? I will do him a favour and set aside some time for Starship Troopers, though it is in line after Series 2-5 of Line of Duty, and Chernobyl which I want to watch again.

[Stavros]

Have you seen Warren Beatty’s Parallax View?

One of the best conspiracy films ever made, and one that stands the test of time, and another in a long line of 70s classics. It probably needs to be seen on the big screen but let's be honest, who would have thought Warren Beatty could act so well? A pity that Pakula's films after Klute. The Parallax View and All the President's Men did not match his earlier efforts.

[Torris]

You make fair points, but maybe this is also a 'Verhoeven' thing: there is always something wrong with his flicks? I will do him a favour and set aside some time for Starship Troopers, though it is in line after Series 2-5 of Line of Duty, and Chernobyl which I want to watch again.

Verhoeven being Dutch probably really picked up on the fashion of Fascism in the movie from his family’s personal experience during WW II occupation. The casual acceptance of “service” for citizenship in the movie foreshadowed what was to come in America after 9/11

Chernobyl perhaps the best docu drama ever made.

[Chiba5]

Fire and Ice directed by Ralph Bakshi

[Stavros]

Parasite (Bong Joon Ho, 2019)

This film takes place, literally on several levels, and it is never clear who is the Parasite. It is in a way a family tragedy, the sharpest contrast being between father and son, rather than between rich and poor, in this case the cynical, world-weary father who has lived on his wits for most of his life and sees little hope for the rest of it, while his son sees opportunities and wants to take them, such as the job which he takes at the start of the film that spirals out of control. I don't see this as a masterpiece as some do, but it is defiinitely one of the better films I have seen recently, and think it is worth seeing.

[TS Evelyn Summers]

The Tax Collector ..... What An AWESOME Movie !!!

[Stavros]

Tenet (Christopher Nolan, 2020)

If you are interested in challenges to the dominance of a linear concept of time, if you think time bends, that you may be able to move forward and backard in time, you will find in this film it is really not that cool. For all its philosophical pretensions, Tenet is a Palindrome, as a film, as the title sugests, reading the same forward as it does backward. And, with its silly James Bond style plot, complete with cardboard, vodka-drinking Russian Oligarch villain + trophy wife in white underwear, there are ten minutes to save the world, or more intriguingly, Ten + Ten minutes, hence tenet.

As is usually the case with Nolan's films, fabulous production cannot induce any empathy for the characters, so the film can seem like an essay in film by a conceited man convinced of his own skill and not bothered by much in the way of human emotion. Worst of all, is that I could not understand what the characters were saying which, in a film of this compexity contributed to my lack of interest. Lastly, I saw this in the cinema, with about 20 others, at a cost of £4.99 (about $6.58 ). I don't mind wearing a mask, but as I need to use spectacles in a cinema, they kept steaming up, not that it mattered much with this film.

[Stavros]

Mandy (Panos Cosmatos, 2018 )

I won't be going to Crystal Lake on my holidays. Blame it on screaming Nicholas Cage, the weirdos and whatever they're smoking, and God.

[Cereal Escapist]

Tenet (Christopher Nolan, 2020)

If you are interested in challenges to the dominance of a linear concept of time, if you think time bends, that you may be able to move forward and backard in time, you will find in this film it is really not that cool. For all its philosophical pretensions, Tenet is a Palindrome, as a film, as the title sugests, reading the same forward as it does backward. And, with its silly James Bond style plot, complete with cardboard, vodka-drinking Russian Oligarch villain + trophy wife in white underwear, there are ten minutes to save the world, or more intriguingly, Ten + Ten minutes, hence tenet.

As is usually the case with Nolan's films, fabulous production cannot induce any empathy for the characters, so the film can seem like an essay in film by a conceited man convinced of his own skill and not bothered by much in the way of human emotion. Worst of all, is that I could not understand what the characters were saying which, in a film of this compexity contributed to my lack of interest. Lastly, I saw this in the cinema, with about 20 others, at a cost of £4.99 (about $6.58 ). I don't mind wearing a mask, but as I need to use spectacles in a cinema, they kept steaming up, not that it mattered much with this film.

Tenet, to me, was nearly identical to Interstellar.

It was far more style over substance because Nolan clearly had a decent idea but as with Interstellar, had no good way to close the movie and as such, Tenet ended up being a train wreck. It was entirely predictable and in no way worthy of all the praise it is getting.

The first hour is confusing because Nolan tries to befuddle the viewer with time shifts and flashing in camera visuals that, while stunning as a piece of film making, do little to advance a good story. The moment that the protagonist and Neil invert themselves for Kat, the movie completely lost me and I was done with it. That it ends as it does shows me Nolan just needed to wrap it up and let them "live" happily ever after"

Nolan is a talented director and visionary when it comes to modern in-camera visual effects. His disdain for CGI is something I admire about him but ultimately, I believe he has now proven himself, between Interstellar, The Dark Knight Rises and now Tenet, that he is a poor story teller and writer.

[Stavros]

I agree with you, Cereal Escapist, as this has been my reaction to the films of his I have seen, most, with the exceptions of Dunkirk and The Dark Knight. I think you might be wrong re CGI in the case of Inception and Interstellar, and though I am confused by his anthropology in the Alien series, I think a comparison with Ridley Scott shows that he also uses elaborate productions but with a deep enough meaning to reward repeated viewing. I think Blade Runner must now be a contemporary classic, and it is interesting from the DVD extras how much from the first film was incorporated by Denis Villeneuve in Blade Runner 2049. From this perspective, Nolan has a more limited vision. I am aso disappointed that the concept of linear time has not really been explored, but used merely as a plot device, and in Tenet, one that becomes irrlevant by the end when, as you say, the plot must be sealed and the story come to an end.

[Stavros]

Monos (Alejandro Landes, 2019)

I bought this DVD not knowing anything other than the synopsis on the box, and before looking it up on imdb. As confirmed there, this is a Colombian version of Lord of the Flies with a difference. A group of male and female 'soldiers' are part of 'The Organization' charged with taking care of an American hostage, a doctor, and the film charts the disintegration of the group as they move from a secure base in the hills into the rain forest.
I have not seen any films from Colombia before, and while this is a well-told if predictable story and the landscape is fantastic, I had no interest in any of the characters. I would not recommend it, but it is not a bad film, some may appreciate it more than I did.

[Stavros]

The Warriors (Walter Hill, 1979 -Director's Cut, 2005)

I became a fan of Hill when The Driver was released in 1978 -it remains one the best films of the 1970s and with Bullitt (1968 ) and The French Connection (1971) has some of the best car chases ever seen on film, wth the additional argument that cars stand in for characters in The Driver.

So I first saw The Warriors in a cinema in 1979 and the version I have seen since then is that one. The 2005 director's cut restores what Hill wanted which Paramount did not -introducing each chapter with a Comic Book frame. I don't mind it because the film has retained the flow that Hill was able to achieve in his early films, with some tight editing and a decent script. Not so much of it looks out of date, though I don't know how relevant to gang sub-culture it was even then. One point of interest is seeing the actors who appeared in this film and also 48 hours, David Kellly and James Remar, but sadly Hill did not maintain the quality of his early work with the films he made with Schwarzenegger and Sylvie Stallion (Bullet to the Head). I didn't know he was associated as Producer with the Alien films. A mercurial talent, like Michael Mann.

[Stavros]

US (Jordan Peele. 2019)

Another film that begins with an intriguing premise that fails to deliver at its end. Although I made a guess in an early scene that turned out to be right, for most of the film I dismissed it, and it did not make sense when it happened. The word 'tethered' to me suggests coercion, but humaniity can also be united, which is positive. And the concept of the double is a useful tool in storytelling but tends to be used as a simplistic contrast between good and bad, even as it attempts to portray complexity in u as humans, with a duality of emotions, and so forth, so that the idea fails to get beyond these basic contrasts. It is a sort of enjoyable film until the later scenes when the need for the reveal to resolve the tensions resorts, as most Americans films seem to do, in violence, there being no other solution. It is a pity Peele relies on violence in his films, when the more complex reality would be to explore his themes of identity without it.

[Stavros]

The Personal History of David Copperfield (Armando Ianucci, 2019)

Probably the worst adaptation of Dickens I have seen -trivial, silly, superficial, ill-conceived, badly-written. I have an ambiguous attitude to Dickens as a writer (like a lot of clever people he was a shit as a man), but I think one of his best novels either deserves better, or remain a reading pleasure.

[sukumvit boy]

The Personal History of David Copperfield (Armando Ianucci, 2019)

Probably the worst adaptation of Dickens I have seen -trivial, silly, superficial, ill-conceived, badly-written. I have an ambiguous attitude to Dickens as a writer (like a lot of clever people he was a shit as a man), but I think one of his best novels either deserves better, or remain a reading pleasure.
Yes ,an interesting point about famous nasty people. Newton was a notorious 'prick'.

[Shad]

Greyhound

[Stavros]

Annihilation (Alex Gardland, 2018 )

At a time when our cells are being attacked by a novel Coronavirus, Annihilation might not be the most aappealing film to see, but it is quite clever, is visually outstanding, and has as its basic idea that if aliens come to Earth, they might want to become Humans in order to survive- or Tulips, or Bears. There are the usual plot holes, a lack of safety gear among explorers being one of them. Not sure if all the team need to be women, and the concluding shots are a bit predictable even if the preceding scene with Lena suggests otherwise -and the exchange with her husband. I recommend it, though it falls short in the end, Let's say 7/10?

[Stavros]

I had a Netflix binge courtesy of a friend who has an account. We watched-

Bird Box (Susanne Bier, 2018 )
The Silence (John R. Leonetti, 2019)
Tau (Federico d’Alessandro, 2919)
Changeling (Clint Eastwood, 2008 ).

In the first two, a global catastrophe means that, to survive, people must either shield their eyes, or remain completely silent. It may not be Covid-19 and is more catastrophic, but the strategies of survival make for interesting films, with Sandra Bullock in Bird Box the best of the bunch.

Tau is the by now standard garbage about a lone trillionaire computing genius who uses his powers to refashion humanity into a supercomputer, before being felled, by a human, on this occasion, with tits.

Changeling is the true story of a serial killer in California in the 1920s, and is the kind of well crafted story Eastwood has been directing for decades- but removes the fact that in real life the boys were sexually molested, and that the killer’s mother was involved.

[bryanferryfan2]

Premature Burial with Ray Milland directed by Roger Corman

[Beast-Mode]

Under The Skin w/Scarlett Johansson

I think I'm gonna need therapy after watching that.

[Stavros]

Jojo Rabbit (Taika Waititi, 2019)

I hated this film. It is superficial, and its attempt at satire failed to make me laugh at any time, or even smirk. It is not the worst film I have seen, and it has a 7.5 score on imdb so some people must like it.

The Invisible Man (Leigh Whannell, 2020)
In the original novel by HG Wells, Griffin is a science graduate whose experiments enable him to become invisible, but not to revert to being a normal human. It is later noted he was born Albino, the implication being that Griffin resented being ignored by society because of his looks, so believed being invisible was the logical solution, but it acts as a curse, and he becomes anti-social even murderous.
In this version, we have, yet again, a millionaire or billionaire techno geek who lives in a remote super-tech house, and has problems with women, mostly a need to exert total control over them. Whereas in Wells Griffin terrorises villages in Sussex, in this film it is his girlfriend who is subjected to a sequence of nasty acts, though in this film there are two plot twists which depart from Wells which I won't give away as spoilers. Elizabeth Moss has become the go-to actor for the oppressed woman fighting back, but I don't find her sympathetic and hope I never see her in a film again. I can't say I liked the film but some people might.

[Stavros]

Edge of Extinction (Andrew Gilbert, 2020)

Edge of credibility would be the more appropriate title. In spite of surviving a nuclear winter following a nuclear war, the water in the English countryside is still drinkable, the people desperate, the acting most of the time even more so. There are birds -pigeons- to be caught and eaten whereas for others, human flesh has become standard fare. One survivor has managed to find a storehouse of canned food that even when discovered by others is not ransacked. The drama pivots on a faded and jaded trope -the woman in distress who claims to be alone but has enough baggage to end civilization before it has barely (re-)started, though thankfully her name is not Eve. I can't recall how much I paid for the DVD, but it is probably not worth more than £1.

[Stavros]

A Fantasic Woman (Sebastián Lelio, 2017)

This is a sensitive and beautifully crafted film about a transgendered woman in Santiago and what happens when her partner dies. Some peope might see standard stereotypes in the film, the bigotry of some, the sympathy of others, the prurient scene in which the main character is obliged to undress, for 'legal' and 'medical' reasons, but the film works because it appears to be authentic, and because of the acting skills of those involved. I actually saw this on tv in London at the apartment of a friend who had SRS a few years ago, and she refused to watch it, make of that what you will. But one of the best of its kind -compare it to the hysterical nonsense of The Crying Game- and you will see how such subjects can be done in the servicee of cinema, not to debase it.

[bryanferryfan2]

Damn, Stavros.... I really enjoyed your reviews.... I was going to say I saw the re-make of Rebecca. It's horribly miscast. Armie Hammer is as stiff and dull as I would expect.... no way he could carry the film like Sir Laurence Olivier did almost 80 years ago with the masterful direction of Sir Alfred Hitchcock and also the so call antagonist of Ms. Danvers portrayed by Kristen Scott Thomas is just another bad decision in terms of casting. However the costume and set design are pretty good. The cinematography is not bad. But, this remake can't hold a candle to the original film version.

[Stavros]

Thanks for the compliment. Not enough people review the films they have seen, but that is their chioice.
I haven't seen the new version of Rebecca, and I am not in a rush to either given the poor reviews in the press which match yours. I must also say I was stunned when you said the Hitchcock was 80 years old and had to check to see you are right. This link is to a brief but interesting introduction to the book, with some clips from both film versions. Joan Fontaine is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors, with the ability to express so much from a facial gesture, and she had an angelic beauty, though I think her performance in Max Ophuls' Letter from an Unknown Woman is her best, being one of my favourite films, though I recommended it to someone who loathed it.

[Stavros]

Climax (Gaspar Noé, 2018 )

From IMDB-

"In the mid 1990's, 20 French urban dancers join together for a three-day rehearsal in a closed-down boarding school located at the heart of a forest to share one last dance. They then make one last party around a large sangria bowl. Quickly, the atmosphere becomes charged and a strange madness will seize them the whole night. If it seems obvious to them that they have been drugged, they neither know by who nor why. And it's soon impossible for them to resist to their neuroses and psychoses, numbed by the hypnotic and the increasing electric rhythm of the music. While some feel in paradise, most of them plunge into hell."

As you would expect from Noé, the aim is to shock, but as you would expect from Noé, it fails because it is so contrived. It may be that members of the cast were genuinely drunk, and that in a later part of the film the sexual intercourse glimpsed in passing is real, but I doubt even Noé would have drugged a child for cinematic effect. The dance routine at the start of the film is actually rather good, and would probably have won Britain's Got Talent as they seem to like that sort of thing. And there is some clever filming towards the end when, with their world turned upside down, the cast appear like bats hanging from the ceiling. That said, in the end this film is about a collective united by dance, that falls apart owing to their sexual preference, their desire/lust, their attitude towards women, or, in a nutshell, the lack of solidarity provoked by their good and bad trips. Does it mean we would be better off it if we were not 'intoxicated' by external forces imploding inside us? Or are we always doomed to be individuals first and last? I don't think Noé has the answer to these questions, and the 'chapter' headings, made up of pop psychology or just pop the weasel, don't help.

Final note, I think one of the cast, Gazelle/Giselle Palmer, is transgendered, but I can't be sure.

[sukumvit boy]

Watching the new miniseries ,"The Queens Gambit" ,it is quite good .I understand that it has spawned a new 'chess boom' with sales of chess sets and books 'through the roof'. The last great chess boom was in the 1770's with Bobbie Fisher ,in which I participated .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen%27s_Gambit_(miniseries)

[Torris]

In Vegas last week. Wanted to see a movie on the big screen. Covid be damned.
Saw the Last Vermeer. A World War II art forgery legal case. Guy Pearce was good as the forgerer.

[Stavros]

Watching the new miniseries ,"The Queens Gambit" ,it is quite good .I understand that it has spawned a new 'chess boom' with sales of chess sets and books 'through the roof'. The last great chess boom was in the 1770's with Bobbie Fisher ,in which I participated .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen%27s_Gambit_(miniseries)

Hmmm, fascinating scoop from the archives -do you think George Washington asked Fischer for advice on strategy? Perhaps this was the one time when a Pawn took a King?

[sukumvit boy]

LOL,sorry about that . I meant the 1970's of course.

[danoblue]

Tenet...confusing. Might be a little too smart for its own good.

[Stavros]

Crazy Rich Asians (Jon M. Chu, 2018 )

I went to a VIP dinner in the Raffles Hotel ten or so years ago, sharing a table with three people from Singapore -two lawyers (female) and a banker (of Indian descent), an elderly Australian who made a fortune cleaning office buildings, and the beauty queen I was with who flunked out after the fish course much to my annoyance. What struck me that evening was just how dull Singapore Chinese seemed to be. You can see some svelte, well-heeled Chinese 20-somethings at Clarke Quay most nights, but my guess is that the super-rich would never go to places like that when they can buy private spaces -rather like the people in this film, which is unoriginal, and though reasonably well acted is, with a bland script, like 'Jane Austen with Chinese characteristics'.

Much as I admire Raffles, and their Singapore Sling is worth trying, next time I go I shall probably head in the opposite direction of the awful people in this film, and try those 'four floors of whores' in Orchard Towers. If we learned anything from 2020, it is that time is short, and not be wasted on dramas featuring pearl earrings, perfectly made dumplings, and a Singapore stripped of its Filipino maids, its forests of tower blocks where most people live.

[sukumvit boy]

Most interesting,pardon my curiosity but just what do you mean by "flunked out" ? After 15 years of traveling back and fourth to SE Asia each year for a month at a time I'm ashamed to say I never made it to Singapore but I remember hearing about the "four floors of whores " and thinking I should definitely add that to my list of destinations. Then again it seems like most of those SE Asian travel destinations have their "floors of whores" like the "three floors of whores " at Nana Plaza in Bangkok,LOL.
I would definitely love to go to Raffles Hotel though.

[Stavros]

Most interesting,pardon my curiosity but just what do you mean by "flunked out" ? After 15 years of traveling back and fourth to SE Asia each year for a month at a time I'm ashamed to say I never made it to Singapore but I remember hearing about the "four floors of whores " and thinking I should definitely add that to my list of destinations. Then again it seems like most of those SE Asian travel destinations have their "floors of whores" like the "three floors of whores " at Nana Plaza in Bangkok,LOL.
I would definitely love to go to Raffles Hotel though.


She flunked out because there were too many stuffed shirts, preferring stuffing of a different kind. Her ego, mostly.

BBC 2 showed The Godfather Part One last night, the only thing I can say about this classic, is that the print quality was superior to the one I have on the 'Coppola Restoration' set of DVDs that I have been watching, mostly interesting for Coppola's audio commentary.

[sukumvit boy]

"The Silk Road" 2019 miniseries ,very good.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12064332/

[Stavros]

Hustlers (Lorene Scafaria, 2019)

This is the sort of eye-candy that could lead to diabetes, so its just as well the story is tedious, though based on real events, and presented in a pre-packaged format so that each chapter is fairly predictable. It is not as bad as Showgirls (1995), which some valiant, but mis-guided journalists have recently attempted to rescue from the dustbin of film history.

The men don't emerge from this with any credit, for what's worth, and one does wonder how much surgeon-general Lopez pays to maintain that perfectly shaped, but iron-hard set of buttocks. Note that for the most part, this is a nipple-free zone, so Constance Wu, who was in the Crazy Rich Asians film, is as it were, 'tastefully undressed', so don't get your hopes up.

What I want to see is the uncensored, transgendered version, but without the music of Chopin, which, must as it can often please, is out of place in this story and any other like it.

[sukumvit boy]

Since "hustling" unfortunately often becomes a necessary part of transgender life for some I'm surprised there aren't more films about it.

[Stavros]

Uncle Vanya (Gregory Mosher, 1992)

This aired on TV in the Performance series of filmed plays in the 1990s. It is a fine performance of Chekhov's play, with David Warner at his irritating best as the depressed Vanya, and David Mamet's wife, Rebecca Pidgeon as his niece, who has the last lines in the play that confirm the genius of Chekhov, the greatest European playwright after Shakespeare -I just can't decide if he is better than Ibsen- and also a writer of superb stories, making him for me one of Russia's finest, and along with Turgenev, Bulgakov and Pasternak a preferable read than either Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy. Ian Holm is brilliant as the Doctor, but at the age of 60 was too old, as Asrov is assumed to be 37 years old.

Chekhov is one of the few writers who offers deeply thought stories in which money is at the core of the woes of the central chacters, but often with another -usually not a relative- benefiting from them, or having the means to survive when the principal family is in trouble, one thinks of Lopakhin in The Cherry Orchard, and Trigorin in The Seagull.

A more recent tv version with Toby Jones was so marred by four-letter words that are utterly remote from Chekhov I turned it off.

[Stavros]

Sicilian Ghost Story (Fabio Grassadonia and Antonia Piazza, 2017)

This aired on Channel 4 a few nights ago.
A love-sick 12 year old pines for, and goes in search of the classmate who has disappeared, becoming a rebel in her small family, and taking many risks. He appears for real, and as a ghost in this sensitive film derived in part from the true story, which I shall not spoil for those who don't know it. It is not really a ghost story as such, as the use of the 'Ghost' is suggestive of those things in Siciy that people neither want to see or hear, though they are all around them.

[Stavros]

Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)

I hated this film when it came out, and decided I did not like David Mamet either, though I did like House of Games (1987). Seeing this again has not completely flipped my view, but it is a 'tour de force' with a superb cast, and I can appreciate Mamet's craft, and also see how he influenced Tarantino, for one. The film differs from the play as he included a new scene featuring the speech the Alec Baldwin character (Blake) makes near the beginning. Rather like the films of Takashi Miike in which crime families fall apart through greed, the film is about a cohort of men, none of whom are likeable, turn on each other in an attempt to score more contracts, rather than co-operate with each other to achieve the same ends. The language is, to put it mildly, 'robust', but serves as weapons rather than the dealers choosing swords or guns. Al Pacino is particularly fine, and while this is a grim story about ruthless competition in which there are, in the end, no winners, it is a gripping film of the play to watch, and there are some alternatives on YouTube though they fail to match this version.

[sukumvit boy]

"The Spy" new Netflix miniseries with Sacha Baron Cohen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB1JWP7nRpM

[Stavros]

Ransom (Ron Howard, 1996)

I don't usually like Mel Gibson films, but this is a well-made thriller in the safe hands of Ron Howard which, though it has the standard format -the crime group that fails as it falls apart from within- is good throughout and has that peculiar twist with the ransom money. I know Delroy Lindo is highly regarded, but this London-born actor I find wooden in most of the things I have seen him in, but it doesn't mess up the film. Gary Sinise is particularly nasty in this film, he even looks it too, though I understand he has done a lot for veterans.
https://time.com/5542632/gary-sinise-book-grateful-american/

[Cerberus]

News of the World with Tom Hanks.

Bit slow but heartwarming enough.

[BlüeKarma]

1304229

[Stavros]

The Gangster, the Cop, the Devil (Won-Tae Lee, 2019)

This aired on tv a few nights ago.
A serial killer makes the mistake of attacking a crime boss who survives to team up with a rule-brreaking cop to hunt down the 'devil'. Mildly comic, sort of interesting to pass the time.

[decastro]

Crazy Rich Asians (Jon M. Chu, 2018 )

I went to a VIP dinner in the Raffles Hotel ten or so years ago, sharing a table with three people from Singapore -two lawyers (female) and a banker (of Indian descent), an elderly Australian who made a fortune cleaning office buildings, and the beauty queen I was with who flunked out after the fish course much to my annoyance. What struck me that evening was just how dull Singapore Chinese seemed to be. You can see some svelte, well-heeled Chinese 20-somethings at Clarke Quay most nights, but my guess is that the super-rich would never go to places like that when they can buy private spaces -rather like the people in this film, which is unoriginal, and though reasonably well acted is, with a bland script, like 'Jane Austen with Chinese characteristics'.

Much as I admire Raffles, and their Singapore Sling is worth trying, next time I go I shall probably head in the opposite direction of the awful people in this film, and try those 'four floors of whores' in Orchard Towers. If we learned anything from 2020, it is that time is short, and not be wasted on dramas featuring pearl earrings, perfectly made dumplings, and a Singapore stripped of its Filipino maids, its forests of tower blocks where most people live.

Couldn't agree more. Completely jacked Coming to America without having the decency to pay homage.

[Stavros]

Why would anyone want to pay homage to rubbish like Coming to America? And is Prince/King Akeem a Muslim? He dresses like one, and has a Muslim name, but the trailer pans from a Mosque like building to the shot of men ringing a large bell, which is not Islamic. U know we don't need to overthink this, but then I wonder what thought went into this vehicle from the start.

[decastro]

havent seen the second one but the first is a classic. regardless of what your personal opinion is, its common courtesy in hollywood to pay homage to movies that you rip off.

[Stavros]

You may be right on the homage thing, I just don't get the kind of satire Eddie Murphy went into. I think his 'breakout' role was Walter Hill's 48 Hours, and it suggested Murphy could do comedy and drama, but to me his career went, either downhill or into graveyard films. But that's because there is a vein of light American comedy that I cannot stand, it doesn't make me laugh, it has gags that were old in 1920, and over the top acting that is embarrassing to watch. The most obvious casualties are Melissa McCarthy -she cannot act, and the voice alone is an abomination, not even the divine Sandra Bullock can rescue their films; the two woeful Seths: Rogan and Macfarlane, and Adam Sandler. I know they make films a lot of people like, fine, but not for me.

[decastro]

Eddie Murphy lamented recently his string of bad movies. Made it sound like it wasn't entirely in his control. I suppose the scripts for some of the hits look indistinguishable from the flops so it becomes hard to tell in pre production what a movie will finally look like. I too think he possessed a talent for both comedy and drama but like the late great Robin Williams, found it hard to consistently strike the balance. You would think that such a job could be managed by their people e.g managers, production team, talent agency as it is their literal job to figure out a way to best mine the raw talent these individuals possess. But after all these years the best Hollywood can come up with as a vehicle for their talents is the light American comedy genre you mentioned.

[broncofan]

havent seen the second one but the first is a classic. regardless of what your personal opinion is, its common courtesy in hollywood to pay homage to movies that you rip off.
I saw it in the theater as a kid and probably a dozen times total. Every time I watch football I think about that scene where Akeem is telling Mr. McDowell about the Packers of Green Bay kicking an oblong pigskin ball through an h. Certain lines just stuck with me like, freeze you diseased rhinocerous. And most goat herders don't go around quoting Nietzsche. As a kid I remember when they were deciding whether to go to NYC or LA I was always disappointed they didn't do a west coast version just because I was from LA.

I'm not going to watch the second one because I heard it was put together haphazardly but the first one was one of the most quotable movies ever and a favorite for me.

[decastro]

I saw it in the theater as a kid and probably a dozen times total. Every time I watch football I think about that scene where Akeem is telling Mr. McDowell about the Packers of Green Bay kicking an oblong pigskin ball through an h. Certain lines just stuck with me like, freeze you diseased rhinocerous. And most goat herders don't go around quoting Nietzsche. As a kid I remember when they were deciding whether to go to NYC or LA I was always disappointed they didn't do a west coast version just because I was from LA.

I'm not going to watch the second one because I heard it was put together haphazardly but the first one was one of the most quotable movies ever and a favorite for me.

Lol it was a favorite of mine as well growing up. I still bust out laughing when I watch that dude sing she's your queeeen tooo beeeeee. I'm leaning towards not seeing the 2nd either because I don't want it to ruin my memories from the first. But I guess we'll see. Boredom often dictates what I watch. More so than reason.

[Stavros]

Before I Go to Sleep (Rowan Joffe, 2014)

If you can't sleep, this nonsense mght help, though it is more likely to bore you. It aired on Channel 4 from 1.35am to around 3, when most of the country is asleep, except in Casualty Departments. The timing may not be coincidental.

The plot, taken from a novel that apparently is more believable or believably written than the film, is shaped by amnesia but begs so many questions as each day provides one reveal after the other that by the end of the film you either don't care, or wonder if even the people in the film do. A man who declares his love for a woman every day is also violent, why is never explained. So many things are left unexplained, other than the appearance at the end of a film of a man who, unlike 'Ben' actually does look like a wife-beating thug. So who knows? And who cares?

[Torris]

Salo, 120 Days of Sodom. Pier Palo Pasolini. Based on the unfinished De Sade novel he sketched out in prison. Four aristocratic libertines sexually abuse innocent virginal boys and girls before murdering them.

Set in the last days of Mussolini’s Italy when the Germans rescued him and put him in charge of a doomed Northern Italy rump state.

Last 10 minutes was perhaps the most disturbing scene I have ever seen in a movie. Horrific bc it is believable such sexual atrocities could have happened at the end of World War II when the Fascists knew their time was short.

Pasolini was horribly murdered, run over several times with his own car, trying to ransom stolen footage of the movie

[Torris]

Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)

I hated this film when it came out, and decided I did not like David Mamet either, though I did like House of Games (1987). Seeing this again has not completely flipped my view, but it is a 'tour de force' with a superb cast, and I can appreciate Mamet's craft, and also see how he influenced Tarantino, for one. The film differs from the play as he included a new scene featuring the speech the Alec Baldwin character (Blake) makes near the beginning. Rather like the films of Takashi Miike in which crime families fall apart through greed, the film is about a cohort of men, none of whom are likeable, turn on each other in an attempt to score more contracts, rather than co-operate with each other to achieve the same ends. The language is, to put it mildly, 'robust', but serves as weapons rather than the dealers choosing swords or guns. Al Pacino is particularly fine, and while this is a grim story about ruthless competition in which there are, in the end, no winners, it is a gripping film of the play to watch, and there are some alternatives on YouTube though they fail to match this version.

I have watched that Baldwin monologue many times. Don’t know who won the Best Supporting Acting Oscar that year, bc Baldwin deserved to win hands down.

[Stavros]

I have watched that Baldwin monologue many times. Don’t know who won the Best Supporting Acting Oscar that year, bc Baldwin deserved to win hands down.

Must be the 60th Academy Awards in 1988, when Sean Connery won the Best Supporting Actor for The Untouchables, in the year that saw Michael Douglas get Best Actor for Wall St, Cher the Actress award for Moonstruck, and The Last Emperor the film. Mamet has only had two Oscar nominations, for The Verdict (1982) and Wag the Dog (1997).

[Stavros]

Salo, 120 Days of Sodom. Pier Palo Pasolini. Based on the unfinished De Sade novel he sketched out in prison. Four aristocratic libertines sexually abuse innocent virginal boys and girls before murdering them.

Set in the last days of Mussolini’s Italy when the Germans rescued him and put him in charge of a doomed Northern Italy rump state.

Last 10 minutes was perhaps the most disturbing scene I have ever seen in a movie. Horrific bc it is believable such sexual atrocities could have happened at the end of World War II when the Fascists knew their time was short.

Pasolini was horribly murdered, run over several times with his own car, trying to ransom stolen footage of the movie

I had to join a film club to see this when it was first shown in the UK as the censors would not give it a certificate for public viewing. These days it is available on DVD, an uncut version released in 2000. They used an awful lot of chocolate in that film...

[morim]

"Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull"

[Stavros]

Mulan (Nikki Caro, 2020)

Predictable and Bland, if beautifully shot, and inadvertenty perhaps a glossy advert for the Communist Party of China, founded 100 years ago on a steamy night in Shanghai in July, the day after a man was murdered in the Oriental Hotel next to the building where the first meeting was held. Spooked, the delegates shfted the next meeting to a boat on South Lake..I was disappointed because Caro diected the wonderful film Whale Rider (2002), a far superior film to Mulan. But hey, its Disney.

[Stavros]

Saint Maud (Rose Glass, 2019)

A former nurse involved in a traumatic incident has become a care worker for Amanda, a flamboyant dancer and choreographer now bedridden and dying from cancer. It may be that Maud is seeking some form of redemption by caring for others, but from the outset it is clear she is no ordinary care worker. She converses with Almighty God. Indeed, at one point, shortly after 'Nancy' (the name given in the credits to a cockroach) slips under the dresser on which Maud stores her religious paraphernia, Almighty God speaks to her -in Welsh, so its just as well the actor playing the role is herself Welsh. There are dramatic moments, moments when identities and behaviour are challenged, and a climax that some reviewers have hated, but utimately this to me is a film about a lonely person who cares for others but has noone to care for her. It is an impressive first feature from Rose Glass but I can see why some people might find it uninteresting. It has echoes, in some parts of John Huston's Wise Blood (1979) and a levitation reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Mirror (1975). There are also some clever re-workings of William Blake's ecstatic images, from a book given to Maud by Amanda.

[Stavros]

Assassin's Creed (Justin Kurzel, 2016)

The Australian director Kurzel created a fascinating visual landscape for his version of Shakespeare's Macbeth, with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, but the two of them in this video-game-movie must have wondered why they were there and what they were doing. I was confused for most of the film, which aired on Channel 4 last night, as I had never thought of the Knight's Templar as a body dedicated to world domination, though they were a militant branch of the Catholic Church before being disbanded in 1314, and there is a successor organization claiming the occasional title of 'Knight's Templar' but formally the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem which has NGO and Special Consultative status with the UN. To complicate it further, there was also a group in history known as the 'Assasins', though Bernard Lewis in his study suggests they were at one time called 'Hashashin' as they got doped up on weed between murder gigs in Persia and Syria between the 11th and 13th centuries. If you are also confused by this, do watch the film, if only to see the climax filmed in the headquarters of the Freemasons in London where the Apple that Eve plucked from the tree is reveaed to be both inedible, and magical, which is not what God had in mind -or was it?

Confusion all round, with startling visuals, and computing power that is probably -one hopes- impossible.

[Stavros]

Shaft (Gordon Parks, 1971)
Shaft (Tim Story, 2019)

The 1971 film is a model of bad acting, a bad script, and shoddy camera work, it bears a visual resemblance to the New York also seen in its contemporary The French Connection, but the comparison ends there. The re-make with Samuel J Jackson and Richard Roundtree has a better script and is obviousy better filmed, but retaiins the predictable and by now done-to-death story of turf wars among drug dealers and organized crime. The third generation Shaft is a weak actor whose outsize role in the film renders it an also-ran in terms of durability. I think someone has been shafted with this film -the audience.

[Stavros]

The Mule (Clint Eastwood, 2018 )

IMDB estimates the budget for this film at $50m, most of which must have gone on the salaries for the cast, as I doubt Eastwood spent much on the script. Ordinary Americans, 'badass' Mexicans, drugs, lovely ladies in underwear who don't mind a threesome with an 80-something when someone else is paying - so there may be hope for those of us closer to 80 than 20. It may be a true story, but this is a 'chamber work' that is filming by numbers, with the Polka band the highlight. In the end, it's more ass than mule.

[Stavros]

Dark Encounter (Carl Strathie, 2019)

The mystery of the abduction of an 8-year old girl is solved by Close Encouners of the Third Kind, with obliging aliens who have seen and admired Interstellar. The script is as poor as the acting, but when it's late and there is nothing else to do, it fills a gap where sleep does not. And it was broadcast on terrestrial tv.

[Stavros]

Self/Less (Tarsem Singh, 2015)

Senseless might be a better title for this rubbish.

[Stavros]

The Woman in the Window (Joe Wright, 2021)

My advice: mind your own business. Draw the curtains, get laid, read a book, write a book, go for a walk, feed the cat. Or watch Hitchcock’s superior version, or a film with the same name directed by Fritz Lang in 1944. But for a woman of 60, Julianne Moore looks good in tight jeans. Saw it via friend’s Netflix account so it cost me nothing.

[sd123223]

The Birds
Alfred Hitchcock 1963

[Stavros]

The Judge (David Dobkin, 2014)

Father. Son. Conflict. Resolution. Justice.

[broncofan]

The Woman in the Window (Joe Wright, 2021)

My advice: mind your own business. Draw the curtains, get laid, read a book, write a book, go for a walk, feed the cat. Or watch Hitchcock’s superior version, or a film with the same name directed by Fritz Lang in 1944. But for a woman of 60, Julianne Moore looks good in tight jeans. Saw it via friend’s Netflix account so it cost me nothing.
The author of the book this was based on is a fabulist of amazing proportions. There's a New Yorker article on it and he basically became a literary agent through carefully concocted autobiographical lies and then cobbled together a book based on every well worn trope of the suspense/psychological thriller genre. The value of the movie took a major hit when this was revealed. On that basis I have trouble motivating myself to watch it.

I am happy with myself that I read his book on a recommendation and I'm pretty sure I recognized it as crap before he was exposed as a charlatan.

Edit: It's an incredibly long read and I know it involves an author so it could be in the book thread, but anyhow everyone I recommended this article do found it amusing and kind of scary. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/a-suspense-novelists-trail-of-deceptions

[Stavros]

Thanks Broncofan, for sparing me the ordeal of the book of the film...

[sukumvit boy]

The author of the book this was based on is a fabulist of amazing proportions. There's a New Yorker article on it and he basically became a literary agent through carefully concocted autobiographical lies and then cobbled together a book based on every well worn trope of the suspense/psychological thriller genre. The value of the movie took a major hit when this was revealed. On that basis I have trouble motivating myself to watch it.

I am happy with myself that I read his book on a recommendation and I'm pretty sure I recognized it as crap before he was exposed as a charlatan.

Edit: It's an incredibly long read and I know it involves an author so it could be in the book thread, but anyhow everyone I recommended this article do found it amusing and kind of scary. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/a-suspense-novelists-trail-of-deceptions
Wow! Interesting article

[sukumvit boy]

The Mule (Clint Eastwood, 2018 )

IMDB estimates the budget for this film at $50m, most of which must have gone on the salaries for the cast, as I doubt Eastwood spent much on the script. Ordinary Americans, 'badass' Mexicans, drugs, lovely ladies in underwear who don't mind a threesome with an 80-something when someone else is paying - so there may be hope for those of us closer to 80 than 20. It may be a true story, but this is a 'chamber work' that is filming by numbers, with the Polka band the highlight. In the end, it's more ass than mule.
Hey Stavros ,I love your kick ass little reviews! However I'm in such dire straits to find something to watch recently that I think I'll try "The Mule" because I'm an Eastwood fan and I'm closer to 80 than 20,LOL.

[sukumvit boy]

Hey Stavros ,I love your kick ass little reviews! However I'm in such dire straits to find something to watch recently that I think I'll try "The Mule" because I'm an Eastwood fan and I'm closer to 80 than 20,LOL.
Oh God! That was awful ,what a slog, I couldn't even finish watching it.
Makes me wonder how and why usually dependable actors and directors get involved in projects like this!?

[Stavros]

Oh God! That was awful ,what a slog, I couldn't even finish watching it.
Makes me wonder how and why usually dependable actors and directors get involved in projects like this!?

I hope it didn't cost much to see it!

[Stavros]

Ryan's Daughter (David Lean, 1970)

I had never seen this before. It is one of Lean's most beautiful films, as his painter's eye relishes the landscape of the Dingle peninsula in Kerry, South-West Ireland. A frankly rather boring love story is set against the tensions created by the Easter Rising, and a shipment of arms -presumably to the Irish Republican Broherhood. A local girl -Rosy, daughter of Ryan, owner of the local pub- seeks excitement and sexual liberation with a shell-shocked British officer. A German suppy of weapons, rescued during a terrific storm sequence (actually filmed outside Cape Town because there were no effective storms in Dingle) is intercepted the next day following a tip-off. Rosy 'comes a cropper' and with her husband, a passive, almost poetic Robert Mitchum (who did not get on well with tyrant Lean and became famous for his exploration of booze, broads and pot) leave for Dublin.

It is a tepid film, but the photography is superb, but strictly for lovers of Lean.

[BlüeKarma]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Black_Widow_%282021_film%29_poster.jpg

[sukumvit boy]

Not a "movie" but the latest season(season 10) of "Death in Paradise". Streaming on Amazon. I'm a fan.

[Stavros]

The House at the End of the Street (Mark Tonderai, 2012)

Even with a plot twist, Jennifer Lawrence cannot save this film, burdened as it is with tired tropes -the 'house of horror' and its neighbour surrounded by a 'dark forest'; the nubile young girls who have problematic relations with their single moms; the sexual frustrations of 'college kids' -who seem immune to the enticements of dope- and the various references to Hitchcock as if we were supposed to be impressed. The only amazing thing about this, is that I didn't fall asleep while watching it.

[sukumvit boy]

:banana:

[Stavros]

Official Secrets (Gavin Hood, 2019)

Based on a true story the film is well-made, well-acted, but lacking any surprises comes across as a cross-between a documentary and a drama. That Tony Blair after the war stated in a powerful documentary on Iraq "I took the view that we needed to remake the Middle East", exposes what a liar he was when justifying it as something different. The film is thus both accurate and out of date.

[Stavros]

Cleopatra (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1963).

I had not seen the whole of this film before, and learning that someone is threatening to release the 6-hour 'Director's cut' would cause concern, but I really don't care. Daryl F. Zanuck butchered this film n release, but whichever version you see it cannot pump any interest into the tediously long first half when Julius Caesar pretends to love Cleopatra and she him. The equally tedious second half has Richard Burton in a succession of mini-skirts seducing or being seduced by Hollywood's most effective screaming queen, Elizabeth Taylor, with the most memorable exchange being the first meeting when Tony arrives in a fetching mini-skirt -
"I find what you're wearing most becoming," Cleopatra purrs. "Greek, isn't it?" He replies: "I have a fondness for almost all Greek things."

Not sure what else to say, hours of my life wasted on a film with no dramatic depth, no visual intelligence, just show, just a bit too Hollywood. Music intrusive, loud and ugly. That said, the film is surprisingly perhaps, historically accurate except for the make-up and costumes which won awards; the entry of Cleopatra into Rome is spectacular indeed, but as someone remarked, it could as well have been Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas as Rome. Some of the acting is beyond hope, not just Taylor and Burton, but Roddy McDowall as Octavian. He might as well have been in yet another episode of Colombo.

[sukumvit boy]

:dancing:

[Stavros]

The Negotiator (Brad Anderson, 2018 )

I bought this along with Cleopatra and David Lean's Oliver Twist as a £10 deal, and it's not a bad film. Based mosty in Beirut prior to Israel's invasion in 1982, the plot hinges on the kidnap of an American who is traded for money by an old 'Beirut hand' (the American) and a rogue Palestinian outfit -hence the assistance at the end of the PLO (more properly Arafat's Fateh). Although a fair amount is historically accurate, and the woe that is Beirut seems well done, the film never takes off, as the acting is, I think, too low key. The film is too intelligent for its own good, and probably needed some Hollywood crash bang, wallop to help it, as wood on its own just makes tables and chairs, and paper. Recommended if you have nothing better to do.

[diddyboponTOP]

Free Guy, just today I loved it.

[Stavros]

Oh God! That was awful ,what a slog, I couldn't even finish watching it.
Makes me wonder how and why usually dependable actors and directors get involved in projects like this!?

If you didn't like The Mule, I can't recommend another film of an old man robbing banks, apparently also based on a true story.

The Old Man and the Gun (David Lowery, 2018 ) has been showing on UK tv more than once, and is a tedious succession of polite exchanges between Robert Redford and some unfortunate bank teller or manager, with the inevitable gun somewhere in his grasp. The film has the charm of cat shit on the carpet, as the memory of its 'banter' with horse-loving Sissy Spacek lingers unwanted, for at least 24 hours. That said, Ms Spacek - who made some genuinely memorable films in the 1980s- looks to be in better condition than Mr Redford- maybe we should all take up horse riding as we get older. Got to be safer and healthier than robbing banks.

[sukumvit boy]

If you didn't like The Mule, I can't recommend another film of an old man robbing banks, apparently also based on a true story.

The Old Man and the Gun (David Lowery, 2018 ) has been showing on UK tv more than once, and is a tedious succession of polite exchanges between Robert Redford and some unfortunate bank teller or manager, with the inevitable gun somewhere in his grasp. The film has the charm of cat shit on the carpet, as the memory of its 'banter' with horse-loving Sissy Spacek lingers unwanted, for at least 24 hours. That said, Ms Spacek - who made some genuinely memorable films in the 1980s- looks to be in better condition than Mr Redford- maybe we should all take up horse riding as we get older. Got to be safer and healthier than robbing banks.:banana:

[Stavros]

Eye in the Sky (Gavin Hood, 2015)

This aired on tv the other night, and presents an air strike on suicide bombers preparing for a mission as a moral dilemma because a young girl arrives outside their building to set up a stall and sell bread. There is a cast of well-known actors with a well-drilled script, but as I did not believe -on the basis of air strikes and drone strikes across the Middle East and Afghanistan- that anyone in the military or government in the UK or the US would agonise for so long over this moral problem, it might have been better to call the film Pie in the Sky.

[sukumvit boy]

"Mars Attacks "and "Guildmember" .
Absurd ,stupid and mindless, best watched with someone you love and are not trying to impress .
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt011699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Powers_in_Goldmember

[Stavros]

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (Michael Cimino, 1974)

Though I have seen this film several times, I started watching it late night on tv, and decided to stay the length again. It was the first of the 8 films Cimino directed, and rivals Heaven's Gate as his best, though I think his films are under-rated. Eastwood may also have been at his peak in the 1970s, but whatever, and in spite of the references to other films (eg, Midnight Cowboy), it is an engaging film, with a spakling script and some fine acting, particularly from Jeff Brides, though the Montana Armoury's security system lacks credibility. The scene with Mr Frosty on the wrong street being harangued by a schoolboy must have been something Tarantino remembered when he came to make Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction -?

[sukumvit boy]

The streaming TV series ,"The Monarch of The Glenn" ,made between 2000 and 2005 I find this charming series interesting and entertaining. We just started series one and I am reminded of John McPhee's delightful book "The Crofter and the Laird" describing the Scottish Highlands system of land management and ownership with it's roots in feudal times.
https://www.justwatch.com/us/tv-show/monarch-of-the-glen

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/128148.The_Crofter_and_the_Laird

[Stavros]

Judas and the Black Messah (Shaka King, 2021)

Based on the true strory of Black Panther Party leader in Chicago, Fred Hampton, this is a gripping film with a strong script, well-chosen and not intrusive music, and an array of cinematic skills in lighting, editing, camerawork -I was worried this was going to be a standard biopic, but in the era of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor the relevance is clear, based on the evidence the FBI was involved in Hampon's murder and covered it up for years. It is astonishing to bear in mind Hampton was just 21 years old at the time of his death, while the actors playing him and the FBI undercover agent Wllliam O'Neal (even yonger than Hampton in real life) are much older.

There is little in the film to link the Panther's socialist tactics with the pre-existing but no less important community work in Chicago with which Saul Alinsky is associated, nor any sense of any dialogue the Panther's might have had with the Lost-Found Nation of Islam and its corruptt and twisted leader Elijah Mohammed, surely in the broader context of Chicago, and especially in the turbulent 1960s this would have merited more attention, where the attempt by Hampton to fuse the aims of the Panthers with the city's Gangs did in fact take place (see the links for historical accuracy).

I am not sure the fim emphasies that in Chicago guns were used in self-defence, though there seems to have been a mixed message on this in the Panther Party more widely. Thus the film may be part of a conversation in the US that reviews the past with a more favourable attitude to the Black Panther Party than has been the case since it went into decline in the 1970s. That said, the Marxian and Maoist elements in Hampton's speeches and perspective open the rift between the Panther's social and community work, and their revolutionary intent. This was a revolution without a resolution, or one where the tenets that maintaned the USSR and China and were the currecy of activists who supported the Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese Communists, have long since been tossed into the dustbin of history. That does not invalidate socialism but begs the question of what it might be in the 21st century, while the insistent and violent reality of race in the US remains as toxic now as it was in 1969, as if little had changed.

As Roger Ebert has argued in his blog, the film does not really develop out the character of O'Neal and his relaionship with Hampton, though Lakeith Stanfield gives as good a performance as he can with the material he is given. I really liked this film and recommend it to anyone with an interest in the 1960s.

Historical accuracy is discussed in these two links-

https://slate.com/culture/2021/02/judas-black-messiah-true-story-fred-hampton-accuracy.html

https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/judas-and-the-black-messiah/

[Stavros]

A Cure for Wellness (Gore Verbinski, 2016)

The most obvious cure for something that doesn't need a cure: do not go to a Sanatorium in Switzerland and be mistaken for a patient and never get out. The film has multiple references to other films, mostly 'Gothic Horror via Kubrick) but even that is just a conceit to perpetuate a long and ultimately unsatisfying film.

[Stavros]

Nomadland (Chloé Zhao, 2020)

What happens when people lose a home, but gain a house -on wheels. This gently stated film on grief and loss explores how people adapt, how they can survive through temporary jobs and friendships, but never regain the stability they once had, even if there is an implication that the past was not always that good. The cruelty of industrial decline does not generate rage or anger, while Frances McDormand offers a visual explanation of her situation that needs no words. A most intelligent and sensitive film.

[Stavros]

No Time to Die (Cory Fukunaga, 2021)

Not time to die? Oh I don't know, after the bike chase, the car chase, the rogue scientist, the billionaire baddie ("people want oblivion"), guns with unlimited ammunition going pop-pop-pop, stun grendes, real bombs, female accomplices in skimpy clothing, irate bosses, and drivers at dusk wearing sunglasses....maybe now is as good a time as any. Farewell, Bond -don't come back, there's a good chap -or chapette...

[corbindallas]

Dune, which was over hyped IMO. Nothing happens and then it just sort of ends.

[danoblue]

Dune

Lynch Dune is better

[Stavros]

Dune (Frank Herbert, 1965)
Dune (David Lynch, 1984)
Dune (Denis Villleneuve, 2021)

Frank Herbert's ambitious series of six novels begins with Dune, which is set in 10191 and tells the story of two families squabbling over a previous commodity found only on a Desert Planet called Dune. The inhabitants of Dune do not benefit from the trade in 'Spice' or 'Melange' and believe one day a Messiah/Mahdi will come and liberate them from the oppression they have experienced. The main character in this, Paul Atreides is a direct descendent of Agamemnon who led the unified Greek armies against Troy. The book is an object lesson in theft, perhaps when JK Rowling was stealing names and ideas and themes from European literature, she figured 'if Frank Herbert could do it so can I'- even creating a young man who doesn't realize at frst that he has special powers and a special mission to accomplish...yawn....

David Lynch in 1984 attempted to compress all of the first book into one film, thus being forced to leave out a lot of plot and characters, and having to rely on 1980s technology to represent the sandworms, spacecraft etc, but actually does a good job considering the material he has to work with. He also had the benefit of Francesca Annis, in her prime one of the most astonishing beauties on screen, but with a lame hero who never rises to the challenge.

Denis Villeneuve has filmed half the first book, the assumption being Part One will be followed by Part Two -and Three? His hero is as feeble and uninspiring as Lynch's, but the film does offer more detail close to the book, but cannot avoid the bland fact that this is a film that is not really about more than some rival families fighting each other. If there are 'deep' issues in Herbert's book about the power of international finance, a global trade in one precious commodity, and the resonances with the Middle East, Petroleum, and mind control, this film doesn't expore them. And though the desert Planet is supposedly a variation on Iraq, Arrakis could just as well be a merger of the Arabic Arak or the Turkish Raki.

The first link offers a claim that Herbert was influenced by the author Lesley Blanch, as well as obvious lifting from European and Asian literature and religion. The second link goes much deeper into Herbert's background, his hard labour, and the fact that just as Herbert poached from others, others poached from him -there is a checklist of 'similarities' between Dune and Star Wars, for example.

All in all, a disappointing experience, not one I shall be keen to follow. But imagine, after 12,000 years, men are still fighting each other with daggers and swords...

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-secret-history-of-dune/

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/dune.html

[Stavros]

Going Clear (Alex GIbney, 2015)

Based on the book by Lawrence Wright, this explores the highs and lows of the universal fraud called Scientology -lots of ology, little or no science. Banned in the UK, it can nevertheless be seen on the internet here-

https://watchdocumentaries.com/going-clear-scientology-and-the-prison-of-belief/

[sukumvit boy]

Going Clear (Alex GIbney, 2015)

Based on the book by Lawrence Wright, this explores the highs and lows of the universal fraud called Scientology -lots of ology, little or no science. Banned in the UK, it can nevertheless be seen on the internet here-

https://watchdocumentaries.com/going-clear-scientology-and-the-prison-of-belief/
Looks interesting ,I read and found Wright's 2013 book to be fascinating.

[Stavros]

This looks like a hoot, so I hope to see it when it is released...if I am still alive!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbIxYm3mKzI&t=165s

[sukumvit boy]

The Nutcracker ,the movie 1986
Beautifully done ,happy holidays
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091658/

[Stavros]

Don’t Look Up (Adam McKay, 2021)

Don’t look up, don’t look down, don’t look to the sides, but do look now. Is this a film about climate change or disaster management in the age of Covid? Does it trivialise the important, or expose our fear of fear, causing us to prefer to do nothing as catastrophe looms?

Well, for all its naughty hysteria, over the hill acting, and a supremely unattractive Jennifer Lawrence (but I can confirm female PhD candidates can be sexy and intelligent), it was entertaining, that at least is true.

[corbindallas]

No Time to Die

Even for a Bond film it's an incredibly stupid title. It's like they pulled a word from random ones and were like this makes sense. It doesn't. Worst Craig Bond film by far. Contrived plot and under written villain. Bad send off.

[Stavros]

I Care a Lot (J Blakeson, 2020)

Sarcasm taken to the Nth degree, and if there is one, Rosamund Pike gets the Oscar for smiles...even if they are phoney.

[Stavros]

The Blind Side (John Hancock 2009)

There is a tall building in Chicago named after John Hancock. This version would be a tall story if it were not based on the truth, though the real Michael Oher isn't impressed with it. I don't think films about sport ever make it past the half-way line, or the basket, and this ain't no different. I watched it because I like Sandra Bullock.

[Stavros]

Elektra (Rob Bowman, 2005)

I had not seen Jennifer Garner in a film before, and on this evidence, I won't be seeinh her again, though she clams she was obliged to make this as part of the contract for making Daredevil part of which I watched before falling asleep.

[Stavros]

Azor (Andreas Fontana, 20210

A Swiss banker arrives in Buenos Aires in 1980 to deal with clients followin the 'disappearance' of his partner. This under-stated film is intended to reveal how the rich protect their money in difficut times, one client giving the banker a sports bag full of cash which is then handed to a Swiss embassy employee who will take it to Switzerland in a 'diplomatic bag' and thus undeclared to customs. The banker does this expressing almost no emotion, just as he takes the cancellation of an account without getting upset, but explains to a creepy Priest who gives him a list of firms to invest in, that they don't trade in currency. It is the Priest who states matter of factly that they had to clear the streets of parasites, though the daughter of one his clients 'disappeared' after being involved with a leftist group, and at the end it seems the bankers partner may have 'disappeared' because he fell out with the military off-loading the assets they have 'stripped' from the 'disappeared'. A chilling film, quite short with some fine acting, as if often the case with flms made in Argentina. Incidentally, although the word 'Azor' in the film is a code word the banker and his wife use with each other to indicate 'say nothing', it is also Greek for Mongrel.

[max1958]

Bram Stoker's Van Helsing

[Stavros]

You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay, 2017)

Unofficial sub-title: If I Had a Hammer. But nothing like the song.

Man liberates abused girl; girl liberates abused man. Result.

I guess, as this has a happy ending, you could call this film a comedy, though it doesn't have any laughs.

Scottish-born Ramsay has a way with dark sides, having diected We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011), and Morvern Callar (2002). The film is well worth seeing, but one does wonder if Joaquin Phoenix enjoys life.

[hardiron4u]

Official Secrets (2019) Netflix

A true story about a British whistleblower who leaked a memo exposing an illegal spying operation by US and British intelligence services relating to potential blackmailing of United Nations diplomats voting on a resolution regarding the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Interesting how governments operate in secrecy.

[bruce_willy]

Oliver Stone's 2016 documentary about the crisis in Ukraine:

1368070

[Stavros]

Oliver Stone's 2016 documentary about the crisis in Ukraine:



The only thing documented in this offensive rubbish is Oliver Stone's obsession with conspiracy theories and his tragic belief that Putin is a misunderstood champion of freedom. Are there Neo-Nazis in the Ukraine? Yes, as there are in Russia -consider the role Russian exiles in Munich played in the creation of the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s-, as there are in the UK where I live. The odious attacks in this film on the IMF, George Soros -ie all the 'usual suspects' rarely if ever bothers to ask ordinary Ukrainians for their views, whereas corrupt politicians who stole billions from the people are treated as if they were heroes. The same people who salted away two-thirds of Ukraine's wealth between 1989 and 2014. What is never explored in this film is how the Russians have managed to alienate so many Ukrainians in so short a time, just as Putin's imperial ambitions are not discussed, or presented as some 'defence of the realm' as if Russia was going to be invaded by NATO, the World Bank, George Soros, and probaby George Clooney and Tom Hanks. The truth may indeed be more complicated than this, and there may be some ugly truths in the Ukraine, it is after all, a moder state with all the problems that contains. But this wretched drivel is allergic to the truth. It's just Infowars on steroids.

Oliver Stone has form, as the risible JFK showed. Treat with caution.

[iHeart_PONG]

The Batman

I wrote a gigantic blog post and have argued this movie with friends so I will just summarize my thoughts here.

There is an incredible detective and Batman character study deep within this movie just waiting to be told but it never quite gets there. Reeves is too busy with long dramatic shots and trying to seem deep and introspective than actually being it and therefore it just misses the mark as an overall movie. Almost all of the cast knocks the roles they are given out of the park except for Dano (Riddler) and Wright (Gordon). With the latter, Wright is just not that important and I feel he is really only in this as a set up for his forthcoming HBO Max series focusing on the GCPD. With The Riddler, his character fell apart in the 3rd act after the reveal of his ultimate plan and motivation. He was menacing up until that point but everything that happens after the interrogation scene ruined the Riddler for me.

[bruce_willy]

The only thing documented in this offensive rubbish is Oliver Stone's obsession with conspiracy theories and his tragic belief that Putin is a misunderstood champion of freedom. Are there Neo-Nazis in the Ukraine? Yes, as there are in Russia -consider the role Russian exiles in Munich played in the creation of the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s-, as there are in the UK where I live. The odious attacks in this film on the IMF, George Soros -ie all the 'usual suspects' rarely if ever bothers to ask ordinary Ukrainians for their views, whereas corrupt politicians who stole billions from the people are treated as if they were heroes. The same people who salted away two-thirds of Ukraine's wealth between 1989 and 2014. What is never explored in this film is how the Russians have managed to alienate so many Ukrainians in so short a time, just as Putin's imperial ambitions are not discussed, or presented as some 'defence of the realm' as if Russia was going to be invaded by NATO, the World Bank, George Soros, and probaby George Clooney and Tom Hanks. The truth may indeed be more complicated than this, and there may be some ugly truths in the Ukraine, it is after all, a moder state with all the problems that contains. But this wretched drivel is allergic to the truth. It's just Infowars on steroids.

Oliver Stone has form, as the risible JFK showed. Treat with caution.

Well I thought it was pretty interesting. It never mentioned the Holodomor though. That kind of explains why some Ukrainians hate Russia an joined the Nazi's during WW2.

What do you reckon on all these US funded biological laboratories in the Ukraine located near Russian borders that have now been discovered?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/victoria-nuland-ukraine-has-biological?s=w

[Stavros]

What do you reckon on all these US funded biological laboratories in the Ukraine located near Russian borders that have now been discovered?



"The posts misrepresent a 2005 pact (https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/sbu-no-us-biological-laboratories-in-ukraine.html) under which the U.S. Department of Defense and Ukraine’s Ministry of Health agreed to work together to ensure that labs studying disease in Ukraine could not be used to develop biological weapons and to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, the Kyiv Post reported in May 2020.

The U.S. Biological Threat Reduction Program’s “priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats,” according to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. (https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defense-threat-reduction-office/biological-threat-reduction-program/)
The arrangement grew out of the 1994 agreements (https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons) under which Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons that remained in its possession after the breakup of the Soviet Union and which, at the time, made Ukraine the third largest nuclear power in the world. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html)
The pact — and a similar one in the former Soviet republic of Georgia (https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/does-the-us-have-a-secret-germ-warfare-lab-on-russias-doorstep/) — has been the target of disinformation campaigns in the past, said Andrew Weber, (https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/about/leadership/andrew-weber/) a senior fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks and a board member of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association (https://www.armscontrol.org/about)."
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/social-media-posts-misrepresent-u-s-ukraine-threat-reduction-program/

[bruce_willy]

What do you reckon on all these US funded biological laboratories in the Ukraine located near Russian borders that have now been discovered?



"The posts misrepresent a 2005 pact (https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/sbu-no-us-biological-laboratories-in-ukraine.html) under which the U.S. Department of Defense and Ukraine’s Ministry of Health agreed to work together to ensure that labs studying disease in Ukraine could not be used to develop biological weapons and to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, the Kyiv Post reported in May 2020.

The U.S. Biological Threat Reduction Program’s “priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats,” according to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. (https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defense-threat-reduction-office/biological-threat-reduction-program/)
The arrangement grew out of the 1994 agreements (https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons) under which Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons that remained in its possession after the breakup of the Soviet Union and which, at the time, made Ukraine the third largest nuclear power in the world. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html)
The pact — and a similar one in the former Soviet republic of Georgia (https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/does-the-us-have-a-secret-germ-warfare-lab-on-russias-doorstep/) — has been the target of disinformation campaigns in the past, said Andrew Weber, (https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/about/leadership/andrew-weber/) a senior fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks and a board member of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association (https://www.armscontrol.org/about)."
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/social-media-posts-misrepresent-u-s-ukraine-threat-reduction-program/

The Glenn Greenwald substack link I provided was about how the so-called "fact checkers" were lying and is 24 hours old. You provide a link to the "fact checkers" from a week ago.

LOL.

[Stavros]

Glenn Greenwald, oh dear. Like he doesn't have an axe to grind?

How does a legally binding treaty that is public knowledge become an example of the 'deep state' at work? The Americans were all over Russia when Yeltsin was President -they were invited in to Russia and the Ukraine, they came with capital and expertise to modernize the clapped out industries Russia had; they formed partnerships with the richest Russian Oligarchs and Putin got his cut.

Crucially, for this post, the US persuaded Ukraine to give up its arsenal of nuclear weapons (South Africa did too), and then built in mechanisms to safeguard the stockpiles of reserves and technology because in the 1990s the Russians were incapable of doing it -do you not remember those scare stories of nuclear weapons being stolen in Russia because their security was so poor and impoverished Russians needed the money and they were going to sell these 'bombs' to Militant Muslims? None of that was true either. All you have is a working agreement with the US which Putin doesn't like, so it becomes a conspiracy, just as the Infowars commentary on the Olive Stone film ends by insisting the wicked US was determined to import into Russia those evils that have so corrupted the US at home -geneticaly modified foods, Macdonalds, and 'sexual perversions', presumably Hungangels!

Whatever -I was going to link the film but YouTube asked me to sign in to see it, and other sources claim YouTube have now removed the film. I thnk that is wrong. I think Oliver Stone should be publicly accountable for this sort of trash, and also explain why he never balances his claims with comment from someone in the Ukraine who doesn't agree with him -the only voices you hear are pro-Putin.

It is available on Vimeo here so those not famiiar with it can make up their own mind-

https://vimeo.com/248285239

[bruce_willy]

This is free on youtube. Over 19 million views now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

[Stavros]

Thanks for this link bruce-willy, and the deeply flawed presentation, which shares with Oliver Stone, but in less hysterical terms, the view that the crisis/crises are US led, and amount to a 'top down' form of political revolution. Go straight to 23.10 and Mearsheimer's claim that the Russians have taken Crimea but won't go further and 'try to conquer Ukraine' -because 'Putin's much too smart for that'-hmmmm....so he isn't smart?

Where are the people in these presentations? Nowhere, or, like sheep they blindly follow the Americans, or for that matter in the East and South, the Russians. No mention of the fact that between 1990 and 2004 the Oligarchs, corrupt officials and organized crime stole two-thirds of the country's wealth and the people had simply had enough and wanted change.

And why would Ukraine want to be part of the corrupt core, Russia, the destinaton for most of its wealth, rather than the open democracy of the EU and its Single Market? What terrified Putin was the move toward the very form of democracy that Mearsheimer admits Putin objects to, and decided to use force to stop it- because what the people want is irrelevant to him. But suppose its what the Ukrainians wanted?

As for NATO, there was no forward march in the simple sense he presents it or Finland would be in NATO and it is not. Georgia was an example of a State that to my mind is not logically or geographically in Europe, so has no claim on membership of the EU, but was for good reason fed up with being the footstool for Russian crooks, in the way Azerbaijan has become. So, as with Stone, so with Mearshemer, a contentious presentation of 'Power Politics' which takes it cues from the Top, never coming to terms with the 'bottom' or the broad mass of Ukrainian people, and one wonders if the Russian speaking citizens in the East and the South feel truly blessed to be part of Russia.

You can't force democracy on people, but can you deny it to them too, if that is what they want? And is it not strange, that Americans who have based their entire economic justification for their Union on free markets, seem in these two cases so reluctant to admit new members into it? The UK has left the largest Single Market in the world, and it has been a terrible mistake, one can see why Ukraine wants to be part of it, as indeed at one time, Putin himself considered possible.

He made his choices, and they were the wrong ones.

[Stavros]

The Green Knight (David Lowery, 2021)

A contemporary version of the 14th century poem which changes its ending, and does not really follow through the theme of Chivalry that is fundamental to the original. It looks wonderful, and the acting is ok, but it is slow, and the change in the ending requires some thought, which I haven't given it much of. The sorcery and magic elements are not as prominent as they are in the original poem, nor is the well-worn idea that a young man must succeed at various trials before attaining 'adulthood' pursued, though this is also a fault in Tolkien. It's not that bad, so I recommend it. The IMDB entry is unusually inaccurate as it give Count Tipperary in Ireland as the location, whereas the extra on the DVD has the director and other members of the crew stating they shot it in County Kildare.

[danoblue]

The Batman!

I sold my Green Knight 4K disc, didn’t like it. Glad I only paid $10 for it on Black Friday.

[danoblue]

Jeffery Wright is really only in this as a set up for his forthcoming HBO Max series focusing on the GCPD.

Already been done, it was called Gotham on Fox TV and it was a great show. I own the entire series on Blu-ray. Jeffery Wright was great in the film.

Glad Batfleck isn’t in it.

Fantastic movie, liked it better than No Way Home.

[Stavros]

Very sad to hear that Ray Liotta has died at the age of 67 while filming in the Dominican Republic. He has over 120 credits on IMDB mostly of films I haven't seen or heard of, and though he will be remembered for Goodfellas, he was in many other fine films too.

Ray Liotta - IMDb (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000501/)

Ray Liotta Breaks Down His Most Iconic Characters | GQ - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDdJKlDZJSc)

[seilinos]

This is free on youtube. Over 19 million views now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4


I ve saw that

[Stavros]

Inheritance (Vaughn Stein, 2020)

'Simon Pegg as you've never seen him before!'-and never want to see again. Like this film.

[Stavros]

Infinitum: Subject Unknown (Matthew Butler-Hart, 2021)

Shot on an iPhone during the lockdown of 2020, mostly in Crouch End in North West London (I confess I bought a kebab there once, and ate it on the way home), this film is derived in part from the Isaac Asimov Foundation books, with implied links to 'mind control' experiments such as MKultra. The problem is that the captive woman frees herself in a cycle of repeated situations, choosing options each time that give the film its narrative drive, but we never know why she was in captivity, and if this was an experiment by the clinic named at the start of the film, or because of some war that seems to have happened, is happening, and the suggestion of surveillance due to an airship. Any hope of a big 'reveal' at the end of the film fizzles out. Just as we are permanently doomed to repeat our lives again and again, tweaking this scene and that, so one hopes people will not be encouraged to see this film again and again, though it is not that bad to look at.

[luv4Tgirls]

The new Top Gun

[seilinos]

The Outfit

[CORVETTEDUDE]

The Hitman's Bodyguard - Sam Jackson

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Jurassic World-Dominion

[diddyboponTOP]

Nobody.... It's a great John wick type action film.... Right down to his daughters cat being stolen setting his rampage off instead of his Dog lol.

[diddyboponTOP]

The new Top Gun

I can't wait to see it, I'm. Huge Tom cruise fan since Risky Business. He's in my Top 5 all time
Tom Cruise
Tom Hanks
Jack Nicholson
Johnny Depp
And Brad Pitt in no specific order are my top five favorite actors and I would recommend their whole filmography to anyone who hasn't seen any of their films.

[rodinuk]

Bob's Burgers - The Movie

Kudos to the little local cinema for screening this on premiere. Not sure that they understood how it sits between kid's cartoons and adult films but it was half-term coming-up and they took a gamble, fair play to them. That being said there was no one else in the cinema on this initial Thursday afternoon matinee so guess their target audience was still doing after-school clubs and homework etc.

It was good to see it on the big screen but the storyline lacked ambition and some of the character's quirks were underplayed. Conspicuously missing was Bob's nemesis Jimmy Pesto (you only see a peek of him sweeping outside his restaurant from inside Bob's place) because the actor was sacked after he'd been involved in the January 6 riots on the Capitol. The songs didn't quite deliver either, lacking the punch and wit of those in the tv series.

In summary a bland effort and it really struggled with the extended format, a few smiles along the way but I got more laughs out of the new Minions film trailer in the pre-show.

[Stavros]

The Gray Man (Anthony Russo, Joe Russo 2022)

When Philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old -Hegel gets some things right, like this verdict on supposedly satirical addition to the Assassin genre, in fact a genre old before its time. Gray, or grey, it begs to be interred. In fact, there may even be a sequel. I watched it on someone else's Netflix account, so no apologies.

[Jericho]

Nobody.... It's a great John wick type action film.... Right down to his daughters cat being stolen setting his rampage off instead of his Dog lol.

The "Bus scene".
Did NOT know who they were fucking with! :dead:

[CORVETTEDUDE]

TOP GUN - Maverick

[Stavros]

Cyrano (Joe Wright, 2021)

Revising Rostand's tour de force of lyrical drama into a musical has been a mistake, and nothing can rescue this attempt from the dustbin. The acting throughout is dire, so let's not ransack the dictionary to find an even more negative word to describe the 'singing'.

Non, merci!

[CORVETTEDUDE]

The Accountant

[BlüeKarma]

Thor Love & Thunder. it was OK if you could turn your brain off (I could not) there were some attempts at humor that made me smirk, the strong female roles were nice I guess, Christian Bale was wasted in this but he is awesome and managed to be a compelling villain. 6/10

[Stavros]

The Pale Blue Eye (Scott Cooper, 2022)

A collection of English/British actors assembles in the military academy at West Point, part of an odd detective drama that has Edgar Allan Poe as a character -yes, he did a spell in Westpoint- and tries to use some of the techniques in Poe's fiction to weave a tale within a tale. The result is not quite excruciating boredom, but flipping heck. I admit I was probably asleep for the last twenty minutes, and it made no difference to me or the film.

Viewed on a friend's Netflix account, so I can say I didn't pay for it.

[Stavros]

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Rian Johnson, 2022)

Is Benoit Blanc going to become the detective version of Mission:Impossible? The cameos in the film suggest well-known people want to be part of the franchise, presumably in case we forget who they are. We may be reaching a point where it is best to forget Benoit Blanc is an English actor pretending to be a gay Southern Gentleman, though I understand Daniel Craig is now a US Citizen.

The film is as entertaining as the original Knives Out, which was not original, but had some spectacularly fizzy acting, and this one does too, though overall the roster is less good, with weak performances from Kate Hudson and two other women I had never heard of. Probably the best moment is provided by Serena Williams, but hey, that's showbusiness.

[Mirgofino]

The last movie I watched was 'Huldufólk 102'. A documentary about the hidden people of Iceland. You can easily find and watch it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808308/?ref_=ttls_li_tt

[Jackal]

China Girl by Abel Ferrara...a great, gritty throwback movie like a mobster Romeo & Juliet. You can watch for free on Tubi

[Stavros]

Anne with an E (Pelican Ballet, 2017-2019)

I am putting this in movies but it could be a tv series, as I watched it on a friend's Netflix account, or rather, we watched it together. The series is derived from the series of novels, Anne of Green Gables, one of the (few) classics of Canadian literature

A coming-of-age series that is focused on a strong-willed but attractive character called Anne who, orphaned at an early age and miserable in care homes, finds love on a farm in Prince Edward Island. The acting, by the Irish-born Amybeth McNulty, and Geraldine James, is what carries this through, though by series 3 it was struggling to maintain an interest, and some of the Canadian actors are, well, equipped with shall we say, 'basic skills'. It was enjoyable at times, but not something to stretch the imagination, though it might justify a trip to PEI if you are in Canada, though I suspect as part of a Coast-to-Coast adventure. I give this 7/10 for enjoyment.

Anne with an E - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_with_an_E)

[Stavros]

Clemency (Chinonye Chukwu, 2019)

The Warden of a US prison supervises executions, which eventually begins to undermine her self-confidence. An understated film with fine performances from Alfre Woodward and Wendell Pierce, but not surprises.