What was the last film you watched?

[Seaviewer]

Aquaman (2018)


Despite my comics reading childhood, Aquaman was a character who - other than some regular appearances in the JLA - mostly passed me by. He just never interested me in the way that many of his peers did. I really wasn't sure I wanted to watch a two and a half hour film about the character.

When I was a kid, Aquaman was sort of the joke Superhero. He swims under water and talks to fish. Still, he was on TV (in animation) which put him ahead of the Flash (until the John Wesley Shipp series).
Here they've fleshed out his background with a tie-in to the Atlantean legend and given him a mission to save the world with a tie-in to the climate crisis.
It held my interest better than I thought it would.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I often find Nicole Kidman a bit challenging to watch. I don't know why but I always want to like her more than I do (if that makes sense).

Complete sense. In fact her presence in this was one of the reasons I've been in no hurry to watch it.

It's one of the three or four best haunted house films ever.

As I watched it, your Haunted House Movies thread sprang to mind and I wondered if this rated a mention in there. Then I forgot to look. Now I see you mentioned it in the very first post there (along with the other three).

Aquaman

It held my interest better than I thought it would.

That was the main positive for me, too. For all the reasons you mentioned I had a bit of an aversion to the character during my comic-reading days, so to make it through a long film says something about the film (as well as my bloody-minded perseverance).

That said, I wouldn't watch it again, and I have every intention of avoiding the sequel. Even though Heard's role has apparently been cut down to almost nothing, just the fact that she's been near it taints the whole thing for me.

 

[Crimson]

It's one of the three or four best haunted house films ever.

her presence in this was one of the reasons I've been in no hurry to watch it.

Likely the reason I have never watched THE OTHERS. I've enjoyed Nicole's work occasionally, but I lean towards being ambivalent about her. I'm now intrigued enough by THE OTHERS to add it to the Halloween viewing this year.

I rarely, if ever, watch horror movies for 11 months out of the year but then watch basically nothing but horror(-ish) in October. Over the past week, I've been watching one or two per night. In no particular order:

FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) Long one of my favorite horror films and, I think, one of the two or three best vampire movies. This one is nearly an annual tradition for me. My only real quibble about movie through the years is Amanda Bearse, who I've always found a somewhat irksome actress. It hardly seemed worth the effort of saving her character from the vampire.

CRIMSON PEAK (2015) I had not seen this one before and now I know why; my instincts to avoid it were keen. I love a movie with visual flair but too much can be too much. The visuals in the film are so overdone, the (very thin) story was swamped. I could never forget I was watching overly costumed actors performing on overly decorated sets. At no point did the movie "pull me in". I fell asleep at around the 75% mark and, until then, nothing remotely interesting or spooky had occurred.

THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE DEMETER (2023) I was mildly optimistic for this one, based on the lone chapter of the original DRACULA novel on shipboard. Even a rudimentary version of this story should have been easy to pull off, essentially a Victorian era ALIEN -- a group of people trapped in a confined space being hunted by an unseen force. But Hollywood, in 2023, no longer knows how to make movies. Too much CGI, frantic action and silly gore ruined any tension or atmosphere that might have built. Also, the worst vampire design ever.

BRAM STROKERS' DRACULA (1992) After the last film, I thought perhaps I'd make my way backwards through the more notable Dracula movies. I finished Coppola's version, although I find myself disliking it a bit more each time I watch it. Unlike CRIMSON PEAK, the over-the-top style adds to the movie here. It's the actors who sink it: ranging from preposterously hammy to weirdly awkward, this may be the worst acted film I've ever seen. I tried watching the 1979 version with Frank Langella and the 1974 version with Jack Palance. My patience broke early on both. I barely lasted 30 minutes into the later, but found it too sluggish and dry in the 1970s TV kind of way. Speaking of which ...

SALEM'S LOT (1979) No movie of my childhood haunted me more than this one; I don't think I've ever walked into a dark room without half expecting there to be a vampire with glowing eyes sitting in a rocking chair. It's remarkable just how creepily effective several sequences are in this production; and, therefore, also remarkable how flat and devoid of atmosphere the rest of the movie is in comparison. Typical TV stuff of the era: glacial pacing and thick-headed characters responding to events too slowly for apparently no reason than the writers needed to drag it out. But, man, when it's good it's really good.

BEETLEJUICE (1988) Weird and humorously macabre, this one is always a delight. There is only one part of the movie I dislike: Beetlejuice himself. A character who's meant to be obnoxious and annoying is still obnoxious and annoying. Fortunately he's not on screen as much as one might expected as the title character, and when he's not around the movie is a blast.

ELVIRA MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988) This one needed Tim Burton. It seemed heavily inspired by Burton's PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE and the aforementioned BEETLEJUICE, but it's not nearly as funny or as well executed. Still, Elvira's Mae West filtered through Morticia Addams routine was (and is) fun.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I've enjoyed Nicole's work occasionally, but I lean towards being ambivalent about her.

I feel much the same. I struggled to recall anything in which I've recently watched her and did a quick search of this thread to refresh my memory. Seems I watched her last year in a film called The Upside:

Nicole Kidman is a familiar face (with only one expression at that. Still, she was perfectly acceptable here).

That was pretty much my takeaway from a film where I was really impressed with a number of the performances. At this point I can't even picture her in this film.

The only film of hers that I can specifically recall watching and enjoying was The Stepford Wives and, daft as the film was, I thought she was pretty good in it.

To Die For is one I'd be interested in watching at some point, and I feel I should also watch Eyes Wide Shut one of these days. While I don't actively avoid her, I imagine I may have got round to watching these sooner with a different lead. And of course there's every chance I'll end up wishing I'd watched them years ago as I did with The Others.

I'm now intrigued enough by THE OTHERS to add it to the Halloween viewing this year.

If you do, I'd love to know your thoughts afterwards. It may be just the remedy for this:

Too much CGI, frantic action and silly gore ruined any tension or atmosphere that might have built.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I'm now intrigued enough by THE OTHERS to add it to the Halloween viewing this year.

Even if you'd dislike Nicole's performance then it's still good enough to watch.

CRIMSON PEAK (2015) I had not seen this one before and now I know why

Images of that beautiful grand staircase was all it took to make me swallow the bait. I felt a bit stupid afterwards (was it even a real set?)

BEETLEJUICE (1988) Weird and humorously macabre, this one is always a delight. There is only one part of the movie I dislike: Beetlejuice himself.

I feel exactly the same about the SHREK films. Fabulous supporting characters, but an unwatchable protagonist.

and I feel I should also watch Eyes Wide Shut one of these days.

I remember not liking it at all, but that was a very long time ago. Since it features Nicole and Tom Cruise I don't feel tempted to challenge that opinion.

To Die For is one I'd be interested in watching at some point

I believe this was sort of a dramedy.

The one Nicole Kidman film I'd really love to see is DOGVILLE. I have no idea what it is but it looks intriguing.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Totally Killer (2023)

Since it's October I've added a number of horror/thriller/slasher films to my watchlist, most of which I won't end up watching. This was chosen pretty much on the basis that it was the last one added, and so the first to appear when I entered my watchlist.

Being made this year for Amazon it's fair to say expectations were low (incidentally, before watching the updated Leo The Lion logo at the start of this film I had no idea that MGM was now owned by Amazon).

Had I read an outline of the premise, I may well have steered well clear of this. In general I'd prefer to watch a straight horror than a "aren't we knowing and clever" comedy-horror but the balance was pretty tolerable. Then, a little way into the film, someone mentioned time-travel. While it didn't seem feasible, my heart still sank a bit at the prospect (Christ - wasn't Stab 5 or 6 said to have done this in Scream 4). And when the film followed through, it went from the potentially sublime to the potentially ridiculous.

Naturally, the trip back to 1987 was an excuse for writers to do the knowing, clever, ironic references to pop culture. Thanks to borrowing heavily from the film Back To The Future is mentioned a fair bit, and there's a reference to the cross-time capers of Endgame. Michael Myers gets a mention or two and someone in 1987 asks "What's Scream? (the answer: "it's a movie you haven't seen yet that you'll think stars Drew Barrymore but doesn't").

There are also attempts to make commentary regarding societal differences between Gen-X and Gen-Z, with much of the humour coming from protagonist Jamie's(!) shocked reactions to being touched on the arm by a man, casual homophobia, smoking or a party with underage drinking. It's fairly ham-fisted, and one can sense the writers' need to get across that while they might portray their 1987 characters doing X, they don't endorse it. As a it never quite feels a truthful portrayal of the era. But then with this genre it's not like I was expecting profundity and the clash of eras is fun enough. I dare say Back To The Future's take on the Fifties might seem clunky and cartoony to someone who lived through that decade. All the same, this film does ask the viewer to swallow 1980s characters having vocal creak and using frequent 21st Century speak ("super-[whatever]" is used a number of times, while one 1987 teen even casts an eye over a vast collection of media and says "video games much?").

Something about the energy and the film's unspoken raison d'être suggests this film's ambition is revive the horror genre for a new generation à la Scream. Problem is, the genre now includes the postmodern ironic thing which (a) came into existence for the same reason; (b) doesn't easily itself to being made over and (c) helped ensure viewers are aware of - and cynical towards - tropes. In a sense, then, this film feels a little like a vegan, gluten-free version of the same thing re-presented in recycled, carbon-neutral new packaging. This isn't to say it doesn't work, though.

Yes, I've been critical and nit-picky (for a change!), but as I said I went in with low expectations. I wanted a silly, cheesy slasher and I got one. I was prepared for low-budget fun and I got it. While the low-budget feels at times like the 2021 series of I Know What You Did Last Summer, it's also fairly successful at evoking the spirit of genre films from the Eighties and Nineties: the silent protagonist resembles Michael Myers (if Michael had a rictus grin) but has Scream's whodunnit element and an antagonist that runs and plays psychological games.

I really didn't think I needed to see a slasher that included the protagonist going back 35 years, discovering her mother is a bitch, accidentally pushing her parents together too soon, pairing up with her best friend's mother and affecting the future when her attempts to stop the 1987 killings changes the order of the victims. It turns out I did.

When this film works, it really works.

Would I watch it again? Yep. Would I care to see a sequel? I think I might.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

Would I watch it again? Yep. Would I care to see a sequel? I think I might.

I'll move it back to my Prime watch list!

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'll move it back to my Prime watch list!

Great.

(Except I'll probably feel overly responsible if you hate it ).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014)

I'm probably approaching this from an unusual perspective: I've never watched the 1976 original film and don't know the story and my sole frame of reference is a passing mention of the film in Scream (enough to put it on my radar, but one of many that I've just never got round to viewing. I might have seen a trailer or clips and thought it looked a bit too "raw" in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre kind of way).

Ahead of watching this 2014 version I knew barely anything, other than a line or two from the synopsis that showed when I clicked into it (indicating it was something about a small town where murders began happening again after 65 years). I didn't know who produced, directed or starred in it.

My one assumption about the film was that this would be a remake of the 1976 original (presumably, I thought, with a much longer gap between the original sin killings and the resumption). I'd guessed that this would probably be more expensive, slicker and glossier than the original.

Since I'd expected this to be a straight remake, what I really hadn't expected was for the film to acknowledge the existence of the 1976 film. Even more fascinating, the original film is not even a reboot or sequel to the original. Here, just as in our reality, the 1976 film is a fictionalised account of a real-life series of murders, and its existence - and annual Hallowe'en screening - is a source of shame and pain for many residents of Texarkana. I can imagine this was a controversial choice, particularly to those who are fond of the original. It could be viewed as somewhat dismissive of the original, positioning itself as more "real" than the 1976 film (it even includes an actor playing the real-life original director's son as a conspiracy theorist). But to someone without any kind of attachment to the original film this feels like a particularly inspired choice, adding to the layers and giving an almost documentary-like realism without having the deadpan narration which, let's face it, would look a bit silly today. To me, it comes across as a love letter to the original, recognising the enormous impact it had and still has for many. Reading up on the film today it seems it's described as a metafictional sequel (or meta-sequel). I don't know of other examples of this (though I dare say there are many), but it was perfect in this case as it helped me familiarise myself with both the real-life crimes and the original film when beforehand I wasn't familiar with either.

I don't believe I knew that the original film was based on a series of real-life killings. Naturally the film discusses the real-life killings, and it does so in large part through exploring the original film and the town's relationship with it. The killings in this film are copycat killings based either upon the real-life events of the Forties or the fictionalised account in the 1976 film (at least one or two of the new killings are based upon scenarios that only appeared in the original film, so it's clear there's an argument to be made for the "horror films inspire real-life violence" voices).

With this being a newer film, I was a little concerned that it might have the violence amped up. It's quite possible it does: there's certainly some imagery that's quite horrific. And while most slasher flicks feature sex-obsessed characters, this one feels more sexually frank. It's a bit more specific than some soft-core groans beneath a strategically-placed white bed-sheet (most victims are either on the verge of consummating or have just done so, and we know exactly who does what to whom. One slaying even occurs during a blow job). However, it never felt too much, in large part because the film feels particularly stylish.

The film's cinematography is a definite winner for me. Some scenes - particularly those during conversations the film's protagonist has with allies - appear to have been shot during golden hour, bathing characters in red light and adding a warm, magical, natural-looking glow. Elsewhere, drab olive filters with long shadows are prevalent for much of the film, adding to the atmosphere and looking very much like a David Fincher film. Indeed, the film's aesthetic paired with the investigative angle based upon real-life serial killings brought Fincher's Zodiac to mind a number of times. There are also some Hitchcockian directional flourishes which add interest. One scene, as someone explores microfiche in an archive, strongly evokes early Columbo episodes.

The film's climax, sadly, is perhaps the most predictable. Not The Phantom's identity itself (no less than four of my suspects at different times ended up as victims) but the fact that the inevitable confrontation and reveal with its series of twists felt very Scream-like. It was arguably just that bit too much and felt as though it was there for no other reason than to please a certain demographic. The film was so absorbing, though, that I can forgive it this little indulgence.

As far as the cast goes, I recognised Anthony Andrews from Scream 4. It took me most of the film to recognise Veronica Cartwright since she plays this role brilliantly and so differently from anything in which I've seen her before. And I didn't recognise Midnight Caller's Gary Cole at all. Today I've read that Halloween 4 and 5's Danielle Harris was present as a townsperson, but I never spotted her. All the other cast were unknown to me, and all worked perfectly.

I'm glad I never read up or look at reviews ahead of watching. Looking at writings about the film today, it seems it was poorly received. I thoroughly enjoyed it, though: perhaps because expectations were low; perhaps because the film's classy aesthetics elevated it and made it feel richer than it was. Or perhaps it genuinely was a really good film and I just have better taste than others.

Strangely, I still don't feel especially interested in watching the 1976 film but, given time, I'd be up for watching this 2014 version again.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

(Except I'll probably feel overly responsible if you hate it ).

If that film turns out to be a waste of time then I'll simply have to destroy you.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[Seaviewer]

The Quick and the Dead (1995)
Sharon Stone as a female gunslinger who rides into town seeking a vengeance which only becomes clear as the film progresses. Also an early appearance by Leonardo DiCaprio.
Stone spends a lot of time brooding, simultaneously honouring and subverting the western tropes. Whether by accident or design, her character shares the name Ellen with Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Aliens and I rate the two among the top three female-led action films (the third being The Long Kiss Goodnight starring Gena Davis).

 

[Crimson]

The Quick and the Dead (1995)

I'm not much of a fan of Westerns, but I love THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, its hyper-kinetic style and how it condenses decades of Western conventions and cliches into a single narrative.

 

[Crimson]

The Others (2001)

I'm glad I gave this a watch; I loved it. It's the kind of film that theoretically I enjoy but in actuality rarely do. There's a perilously thin line between Slow Build and Total Bore and similar movies usually lean more towards the later than the former. The films atmosphere is as thick as the fog surrounding the house. Nice bit of misdirection too. One of the film's twists was fairly obvious, but that provided distraction from the other twist which I didn't see coming.

 

[Crimson]

SILVER BULLET (1985)

I spent most of the time while I watched this movie trying to answer a simple question: how have I gone my entire life without ever having seen this? This seems like exactly the kind of movie I would have watched as a kid. I watched AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON all the time on cable and yet, watching SILVER BULLET tonight, I did not have even an inkling of familiarity.

The movie itself I thought was ghoulish and grisly fun, with some appropriately creepy scenes. It all fell apart at the climax though, thanks to a fully revealed werewolf that looked like someone wearing a $25 bear costume.

 

[rlr718]

The other night I watched Underworld. Which I had previously seen but not in many years. It was enjoyable enough about vampires and werewolves at war with each other. The reason is explained at the end so I won’t give it away.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Horsemen (2009)

This ended up in my watch list based on suggestions from other films I've recently watched or added. I'd never heard of it and knew nothing about it other than the write-up saying it was about serial killings based on the Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse.

I envisaged something akin to Seven, and I suppose there are some similarities, though it arguably evokes other procedural/race for time/gimmicky serial killer films even more strongly: think The Bone Collector, Copycat or even The Silence Of The Lambs (the latter part of this film even featured the protagonist making frequent visits to the cell of one sociopathic killer in a bid to find another, subjecting himself to degrading taunts and crumbs of false hope in the line of duty).

Horsemen may invite direct comparison with some of the films mentioned, but whether it deserves or is worthy of this is a matter of opinion. It's certainly not as stunningly perfect as Silence, for instance. But then few films of its kind are.

Because the genre was most dominant perhaps a decade or a decade-and-a-half before Horsemen was made I'd assumed as I watched it was filmed around the late Nineties. Like a number of the other films mentioned, there's a kind of timeless quality to it, with the drabs making it feel almost mid-century at times. Perhaps by 2009, this kind of film would be viewed as old hat. By this time, the genre had been done thoroughly and well to the point there were very few surprises left.

This film valiantly attempts to push the boundaries a little, and while most of the skin-stretching is very clearly prosthetic, some of the imagery successfully shocks at times: one rather sick out-of-the-blue reveal around 30 minutes in is pretty difficult to shake once seen. Past this point, though, most of the film's turns can be seen coming from a mile away, and the film's ending felt positively anti-climactic to this slightly jaded viewer.

The casting helped this film. Beyond Jaws 3-D and Innerspace, I can't think of any other Dennis Quaid films I've watched (though I dare say there are one or two others). He turned in a good performance here that's piqued my interest enough to want to check out more at some point.

Also in the film's favour is its brisk 90 minute running time, which felt just enough. Had it been as long as most of its stablemates, it would have stretched things a bit too thin, and I appreciate the powers that be having the class to recognise this.​

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Hangman (2017)

Another variation on the "jaded cop races the clock to save the next victim(s) of a gimmicky, themed, clue-leaving serial killer" theme. Moving beyond Biblical revelations, copycat killings or whatever, this film expands the repertoire to parlour games*.

All the expected genre stuff is here: the grizzled cop haunted by the unsolved murder of his wife some time earlier (which, naturally, ties into the current case); the unconventional ex-cop lured out of retirement to solve one last case; the wide-eyed-but-tenacious younger woman who is naturally intuitive and who earns the respect of those around her; the peek into sub-cultures such as BDSM; the increasing spectacle of the deaths; the red herring leading to the wrong man; the inevitable final confrontation. Oh, and the twist. Don't forget the twist.

Al Pacino's performance is fascinating. At first he seemed disinterested to me, almost as though he's phoning in his performance, but then I realised that this was simply his character (not entirely dissimilar to that of Peter Falk in Columbo). His is certainly the most compelling character here, and the disinterested air works incredibly well to keep the film grounded. As an example, one scene has the young woman reporter, seated in the back of the car, responding to a casual check-in from Pacino's character with a lengthy monologue about some previous trauma she experienced while squeezing out some tears as the camera lingers on her in close up. While I get the sense the writer, director and/or actress are treating this as The Big Showstopping Moment for the actress and her character, in context it feels comically awkward because it comes out of nowhere and is shoehorned in (think Phoebe Cates's infamous "And that's how I found out there was no Santa Claus" scene in Gremlins). What's more, her character then attempts to justify the self-indulgent moment with virtue signalling, wrapping up by emphasising that "this isn't about me" but about "you" (the cops). Pacino's character simply utters "OK" (in a sing-song tone that suggests he's glad that awkward moment is over) before turning the key to start the engine and driving off. It summed up exactly how I felt in that moment.

Beyond Pacino, I wasn't familiar with anyone else in the cast, which is usually a plus for me as I'm going in with no preconceptions or baggage. The actor playing the cop was fine. There was nothing really standout about his performance for me and that's fine. He just did everything he was required to do with minimum fuss. The young woman playing the reporter was less engaging for me. I wasn't expecting Jodie Foster, but for me she just didn't have the right presence for a primary player in a big role and failed to generate anything that created empathy with her character. This isn't entirely the actress's fault: the writing tries and fails to create interest with her evasive allusions to her history that ultimately end up feeling distracting and attention-seeking. All the same, I suspect a different actress might have swung the balance towards me actually caring whether or not the character is in a scene. And while I felt similarly ambivalent about the police captain, I do applaud the attempt to cast and play against type there.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment was the Hangman himself. Once onscreen he's all indulgent theatrical monologues, but with overly-mannered teen drama emoting in place of any real presence or gravitas. It was hugely anti-climactic (which is rather impressive considering my already-low expectations).

Perhaps the film's strengths can be best summed up by saying that I was engrossed enough whilst watching but this morning it feels like a dim and distant memory, getting slightly muddled with the film of the night before.

Whether any film is good or bad is entirely subjective, of course, but having looked at some reviews and stats this morning I found it far, far better than they suggest. Rotten Tomatoes isn't a site I take seriously, but a 4% rating from reviews is extreme by any standards. Such reviews, however, will attract extremes, and perhaps in Hollywood it's a greater sin to be middling than it is to be genuinely terrible. Besides, for those who need to read these things before watching, hopefully such statistics will give the audience more realistic expectations (beyond those who make up their minds to hate watch).

As mentioned, my expectations were low enough, and I'm sure this helped. For me, it was never (fortunately) about attaining a life change of "road to Damascus" proportions. I wanted entertainment and an October-appropriate** thriller and I got it. And there was plenty in this film to justify the time spent watching it.

​

* I wonder if my watch list suggestions will eventually include similar films with a killer's motif that includes I Spy, Boy-Girl-Fruit-Flower or Charades. Bizarrely I can envisage each of them working, even if the last one might be unintentionally funny as the killer silently taunts the bewildered police from behind this face mask.

** Special mention to the hazy autumnal colours beautifully captured during a number of location scenes. Rich orange/red leaves in the background added a rich, warm contrast to the obligatory drab filters used for dark indoor scenes.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Beneath The Darkness (2011)

Another blind watch. Presumably this Dennis Quaid film came up as a suggestion off the back of Horsemen. He certainly plays a very different character here: his character's narcissism and righteous belligerence here had rather Trumpian qualities. He seems to be having some fun playing the antagonist and watching him play innocent to the police when we've witnessed his criminal actions put me in mind of watching him play a Columbo killer.

Sadly, it's not a good film at all. While some of the performances are decent enough, it's not enough to overcome production values that feel made for TV (and I mean old school TV movie) and writing that's all over the place. For the first hour or so, I barely knew nor cared what was going on, and everything was so stiff and static.

I'm not even quite sure what genre of film I'm supposed to have watched. Some sources describe it as a teen thriller black comedy. The first part I get, since the young leads did feel straight out of a slasher (and, to be fair, a reasonably well-cast slasher). But there were no real laughs to be had. And it was far from thrilling. It was a bit like watching a student film reboot of Psycho.

There was also a weird backstory with the pretty young male lead seeing bad special effects as his sister died. It was pitched as hugely meaningful and came back at a key point as though it tied in, but I have no idea what it was all about, and it seemed to be completely forgotten about.

Expectations were in check as I usually try, but even I was disappointed.​

Rotten Tomatoes isn't a site I take seriously, but a 4% rating from reviews is extreme by any standards.

And a quick peek this morning tells me that Beneath The Darkness is one of only 43 films (with more than 20 reviews) to have a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Quite an accolade.

 

[Seaviewer]

Capricorn One (1977)
A Mars mission goes wrong. This is the film that popularised the Moon Landing Hoax hoax, yet paradoxically it explicitly acknowledges the Apollo missions as real history. What it really does, of course, is demonstrate how unlikely it would be that such a secret could be kept without someone slipping up.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Stir Of Echoes (1999)

One of those film names that's stuck in my head. Perhaps I've heard/seen it referenced. Perhaps I've read about it in relation to other films or certain awards. Or perhaps the title just grabbed me. It's certainly evocative and conjures up all kinds of images. And yet I've gone all these years knowing practically nothing about it other than it stars Kevin Bacon. I don't think I'd even heard of Richard Matheson's book upon which this is based.

It even felt a little familiar during last night's first-time watch, and I put this down more to it just feeling almost flawlessly "right" than I do its similar themes to other films released around the time this was (it came out around a month after The Sixth Sense, though Echoes' element of the ghost trying to communicate about her murder reminded me even more strongly of the following year's What Lies Beneath).

I thought this was a terrific film, creatively shot (the hypnosis scene was unforgettably surreal and subjective) and with great performances across the board. I've seen a few Kevin Bacon films (who hasn't?) and have never had any strong feelings about him one way or another. With this film, I feel he gave an impressive performance.​