What was the last film you watched?

[Payton Cross]

BARBIE (2023)

View attachment 54443

I decided to ignore BARBIE while it was still in the midst of its hype, so last night I watched it for the first time.

After the introduction or BarbieLand (I'm a sucker for life-size toy/cartoon worlds but the pink overload made me feel a little nauseous) the story starts with the impending crisis courtesy of the person playing with Barbie. This part reminded me of the perfect sitcom world of Pleasantville gettin upset by the real world teenagers.
Once Barbie and Ken arrive in the real world it becomes a mix of parody and homage, and the trick is to find the right balance so that nothing has to be sacrificed.
It's not as good as Galaxy Quest but I thought it was getting pretty close.

Then at some point the real world mother starts a passionate speech about the hardship of being a woman (as if being man doesn't come with any expectations at all) and this really took me out of the fantasy. It felt like a bad moment of telling rather than showing.
But then suddenly it struck me that everything she said doesn't make sense in the context of role reversed BarbieLand.
In fact it is Ken (the film's temporary antagonist) whose story arc is told from a female oppressed point of view, and this should immediately take the sting out of any alleged wokeness.
And while it may be dressed up as a liberation of women from the real world's point of view, BarbieLand itself strongly advocates and even battles for the idea that is "in fact" perfectly alright to aim for pretty airheadedness and fantasies about super careers that don't mean a thing. But from a child's point of view it doesn't have to mean anything and it's really only about acting out fantasies.
I think this is why both the film and Mattel are massively getting away with it. The critique simply makes way for the reinforcement of Barbie.

It's got tons of gags and even if I didn't laugh at everything then at least there wasn't anything in it that annoyed me. I had no idea Will Ferrell could be so funny.
There's also no holding back when it comes to the Ken jokes, and I just loved all of it. And he also got the songs.

So when all that great stuff has happened I guess they didn't want to compromise its ending by giving Barbie and Ken a happily ever after.
Barbie going into the real world "Little Mermaid" style could also be interpreted as Barbie leaving the film and return to the shelves of the toy stores where all toys belong until they're being chosen by someone who wants to play with them.

I'm not sure if we needed a Barbie film, and the fact that they managed to produce a great Barbie film makes it even more special imo.

I haven't seen the movie Barbie yet because after all the trailers and scenes I had an idea of how the movie would turn out, but maybe I'll give this movie a chance someday, because when I think of Barbie I quickly think of all the Barbie dolls I knew from my childhood and it's funny that some Barbie clothes from that time also appeared in the movie, So if I'm ever in a corny mood I'll definitely give it a chance.

 

[Seaviewer]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Sort of a Victorian-age Justice League.
A group of heroes from 19th century literature band together to try to prevent a war. Not as much fun as the premise implies.

 

[DallasFanForever]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Sort of a Victorian-age Justice League.
A group of heroes from 19th century literature band together to try to prevent a war. Not as much fun as the premise implies.

I just remember it being somewhat of a big letdown given all the hype it received at the time. I didn’t find the story all that interesting.

 

[Seaviewer]

My Salinger Year (2020)
Reminiscent of The Devil Wears Prada. Sigourney Weaver as the imperious head of a literary agency overseeing a bubbly new employee and their reclusive client J.D. Salinger of Catcher in the Rye fame

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Threads (1984)

It's easy to understand why this film has been invisible to me. Despite garnering no less than four BAFTAs (it was nominated for seven) it's only been shown on television a handful of times, one of which was the night before last to mark its fortieth anniversary. I stumbled across it on iPlayer last night.

As it got underway I could see it being a somewhat nostalgic look back at a vision of a calamity through the prism of Eighties Britain. This was reinforced by the opening act, which presented as a modest kitchen sink drama about a young Sheffield couple's unplanned pregnancy and the ensuing uncomfortable introductions between their parents. Like our soaps, it's a story about "us": just regular people dealing with life's daily challenges. Which sells the reality of what follows.

Tonally, the film evolves into echoing those scary public information films of the era in which kids were abducted, electrocuted for playing near live wires or sliced in half by trains. The premise here gives scope for this matter-of-fact everyday horror to be taken to extremes. And it is.

Even though I had an idea about the premise of the film I just wasn't ready for what came next. There is no preparing for this. Words that came to mind as I watched included: grim; powerful; bleak; shocking; horrifying... Some of the imagery is truly disturbing and gets into the soul and the psyche. But what makes it most disturbing is how real and feasible it feels. Sadly, as much today as forty years ago.

I'll say no more, because this piece is not just a film... it's an experience that needs to be undertaken, beginning to end.

There are very few films that truly haunt me. This, I feel quite sure, will be one of them.

I'll sign off with the original 1984 introduction to the piece, from a time when television presenters still spoke properly and authoritatively:

 

[Willie Oleson]

from a time when television presenters still spoke properly and authoritatively

From a time we still had the television presenters. I don't think the Dutch presenters spoke authoritative but they were always very polite and pleasant.
Here's Hans, informing us about the next episode of Dallas. Donna Culver makes a cameo appearance with some incomprehensible message.

 

[cijimccashin]

Never Let Go Starring Halle Berry

 

[Mel O'Drama]

1408 (2007)

Last night I was in the mood for something a bit creepy and atmospheric, but not too bloody. I fancied something a bit glossy and slick which meant Nineties or Noughties Dimension fare, but I didn't want anything too formulaically slasher-ish. Running a quick search for horror/thrillers of the era, 1408 came up in a couple of lists with favourable comments about the style (it's #26 in Rotten Tomatoes' 100 best films of the Noughties).

It's a Stephen King adaption and I suppose it does follow a lot of his formula (frustrated writer; creepy, off-limits hotel room; blood on the walls, etc., etc). All the same, it's a story with which I wasn't familiar and which held my interest.

There are a few cheeky jump scares, and some out there horror as well. As is so often the case with Stephen King type stuff, though, it's the lower-key elements that were most effective for me. I especially enjoyed creepy little touches upon entering the titular room, and a few subtle "did I just see that?" gaslighting moments. Possibly the most effective one in the entire film (involving, of all things, a toilet roll!) was also the simplest one, and drew a reflexive little "oh" from my mouth.

It helps that it's well-cast. Samuel L. Jackson is always good value for money. I'm sure I must have seen John Cusack in other films, but I struggle to place them. I was impressed with his screen presence and his overall performance. Being in practically every scene, with a lot of emotional highs and lows and frequently monologuing the entire film hinges on his performance, and he carries it with flair. I'd go so far as to say his performance would be the key reason for a rewatch and I'd certainly be up for checking out more of his work.

A nice surprise for a film of this genre was to see Gabriel Yared's name appear on screen as composer. As expected, he did a wonderful job, and the music fits perfectly. Since I think it would also stand up to out-of-context listens, I may well invest in the soundtrack.


In pictures, John Cusack often resembles Edward Norton to me. In this film, though, I found myself deciding that if Kevin Spacey and Ryan Reynolds had a baby, he'd probably look just like JC. It's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one whose mind went along this track:

^ Oh -the embarrassment. And she's boasting about being a film student.


​

I don't think the Dutch presenters spoke authoritative but they were always very polite and pleasant.
Here's Hans, informing us about the next episode of Dallas.

Oh, Hans looks very charming and smooth, and very smartly dressed. I like the way the borderline flamboyance of the rust-coloured jacket is balanced by the conservative striped tie. Of course, it's the taupe jumper that pulls everything together perfectly and makes him seem very accessible.

His flawless skin, glossy hair and dapper style are like something AI would put together today for young women (and young men) to swoon over.

Donna Culver makes a cameo appearance with some incomprehensible message.

Oh my. I was going to ask how well she spoke Dutch, but perhaps "incomprehensible" answers my question. Still, at least she had a go.

Did any other soap stars of the era attempt to wrap their tongues round the language?

 

[Willie Oleson]

GET CARTER (1971)



Because it's trending on tellytalk, and I needed to know how the catfight played out.
As with most plot-driven stories that deal with a lot of characters all of equal importance I sometimes struggled to remember the who-is-who. It may be very typical of gangster movies.
It's obvious that we're not in Hollywood anymore and the tone is very different from that other classic British crime drama The Long Good Friday (both titles often come up in the same conversation, hence the comparison).
Both films are made in the 1970s but whereas Friday looks ahead of its time in terms of mood and presentation, Get Carter often looks distinctively late 1960s.
Except, perhaps, for the entertainingly bourgeois scene at the Brumby place.

They're walking all over my furniture!

I honestly don't know if this film was more brutal than the ones that came before, but it certainly feels like an exploitation movie. A very good one.
Britt Ekland shows up for a little boobs show and that would have been enough for attention-grabbing purposes, but the real sizzle happens on the other end of the telephone line as we witness another character being exposed to a vocal description of that very scene.
The bad Bond girl, however, is played by Geraldine Moffat, unknown to me although there was something familiar about her. Maybe it was just the hair. Could be Jacqueline Bisset.

"Not in Hollywood anymore" is an understatement when you look at the grey and depressing surroundings with its early-modern high-rise that seemed like such a very good idea. (spoiler: it wasn't, but people have to live somewhere).
But there is atmosphere in everything and when I look at the bigger picture I would describe is "industrial medieval". Stone and mud and bridges.
Michael Cane's bad-ass character is uncompromising throughout the entire film. There's no redemption of justification, and what may have happened to Carter's brother never feels like a tragedy, that part belongs to the Carter's niece.
It doesn't feel like any of the revenge stories like Death Wish, but that's a bad film anyway. Very very very bad. But now that I mentioned it I see the connection of sexual abuse being at the core of the drama.
Get Carter has a terrific ending with some nasty surprises for everyone, it's almost like an end-of-season cliffhanger.

1408 (2007)

I rewatched it a few months ago and liked it better than the first time (expectations may have something to do with it). But I've already forgotten many details so it's back on the rewatch-list.

Oh -the embarrassment. And she's boasting about being a film student.

Ha ha. And that's why I should never interview a celebrity because everything in my head is a potpourri of correct and misremembered information.
Staying with the Cusacks, I keep thinking that Arlington Road starred Joan Allen and John Cusack, but in reality it's Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack.
The last time I watched it I noticed that I couldn't stand Jeff Bridges' voice and why do I even mention this?

His flawless skin, glossy hair and dapper style are like something AI would put together today

That is such modern thinking of you. The comparison would never occur to me but perhaps that has something to do with my personal and lonesome vigilante vendetta against A.I. (cue harmonica music).

Did any other soap stars of the era attempt to wrap their tongues round the language?

I don't remember any specific examples but sometimes they did when they guest-starred in quiz/grande variété shows that ruled Dutch TV in the 1980s.
Everyone now and then I watch some of it on youtube but it all looks very much like time-filler and it's not much fun to go through it again, in the same way that reality shows have no rewatch value whatsoever (imho).

 

[Seaviewer]

Ghostbusters (1984)
The original. I hadn't seen it in a while and the latest sequel put me in the mood.

 

[Crimson]

SALEM'S LOT (2024)

Filmed in 2021 and shelved since 2022, the movie should have stayed there. I didn't think it would be possible to make a bad version of this story; there's so much source material to work with. The novel is Stephen King's best and there have been two above average TV adaptations. The movie is abysmal, although I only watched half of it.

Although set in the 1970s, the film completely abandons the PEYTON PLACE vibe. Presumably the filmmakers think modern audiences are too impatient for things like atmosphere, character development or specificity of location. The vampire is seen within minutes. One of the 1970s version's most iconic, creepy scenes was replaced with a cheap, silly jump scare followed by gore. And then I turned it off.

 

[Willie Oleson]

This is what they SHOULD remake:

(with explosions and nudity and plot twists and a brand new de-vocal fryer).

 

[Crimson]

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE (2024)

My fondness for the original has always been undercut by one major reservation: the title character. I love everything about the movie, except when Beetlejuice is on screen. Fortunately, he doesn't have a lot of screen time in the film and I just grit my teeth through his 15 minutes or so.

He has more screen time in this sequel, so it was surprising to me that I found him far less annoying; maybe Michael Keaton toned down his performance. Overall this was a pretty enjoyable follow up that captured the spirit and style of the original. The movie is overly long, with several needless side plots, but it all comes together nicely.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Because it's trending on tellytalk, and I needed to know how the catfight played out.

How exciting that the torch is being passed on this way.

That is such modern thinking of you. The comparison would never occur to me but perhaps that has something to do with my personal and lonesome vigilante vendetta against A.I. (cue harmonica music).

Oh, I tend to give A.I. a wide berth as well (as much as possible, that is, but who knows what/who's real these days).

I think the reason it popped into my head was because of the video thumbnail which (probably because of the definition paired with the lighting) looks airbrushed and not quite real.

quiz/grande variété shows that ruled Dutch TV in the 1980s.
Everyone now and then I watch some of it on youtube but it all looks very much like time-filler and it's not much fun to go through it again

So often the case with these shows and especially the "celebrity" ones, I think.

That said I did enjoy binge-rewatching Give Us A Clue a couple of years ago, and I have the huge DVD set on the shelf which I'm sure I'll enjoy more than I ought.

Although set in the 1970s, the film completely abandons the PEYTON PLACE vibe. Presumably the filmmakers think modern audiences are too impatient for things like atmosphere, character development or specificity of location. The vampire is seen within minutes. One of the 1970s version's most iconic, creepy scenes was replaced with a cheap, silly jump scare followed by gore. And then I turned it off.

I didn't even know there was a new version. From what you've written that was probably not a bad thing.

I have the 1979 version on DVD, but can't remember the story at all, so perhaps I'm due a rewatch.

 

[Angela Channing]

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE (2024)

My fondness for the original has always been undercut by one major reservation: the title character. I love everything about the movie, except when Beetlejuice is on screen. Fortunately, he doesn't have a lot of screen time in the film and I just grit my teeth through his 15 minutes or so.

He has more screen time in this sequel, so it was surprising to me that I found him far less annoying; maybe Michael Keaton toned down his performance. Overall this was a pretty enjoyable follow up that captured the spirit and style of the original. The movie is overly long, with several needless side plots, but it all comes together nicely.

I saw this a few weeks ago and really enjoyed it. It still had all the madcap energy of the original film and most of the humour landed well. Overall, a very successful sequel.

 

[Willie Oleson]

SPEED (1994)



I enjoyed it very much when I watched it for the first time way back in the 1990s, but yesterday I noticed how truly outstanding this film is.
I'm sure there are lots of special effects, but....it just doesn't feel like it. It looks so different from modern blockbusters!
Never been Keanu's biggest fan but I simply cannot picture anyone else playing Jack. There's something about his soft-spokenness that really needs to be here, and his chemistry with Sandra Bullock is possibly the best I've ever seen in this type of film.
While it has its light moments there's enough room for genuine despair, and there's a lot of detail for everything else's that's going in the story.
None of the characters are terribly fleshed out but it's disaster spectacle from start to finish so I'm not sure when or how that should have happened.
Nevertheless, most of the supporting cast are given great little moments which makes it more colourful then it needed to be.

With all the fuss about modern "Jokers" (first Heath Ledger, now Joaquin Phoenix) I'm going to say that Dennis Hopper does a much better job at playing a Batman-esque villain.

There's some really quotable one-liners like "Poor people are crazy, Jack. I'm eccentric".

He's super evil, from an era when it was still OK to love-to-hate the bad guy.
Of course now that I'm posting it here on tellytalk, sneaky algorithm will inform Hollywood about SPEED's newfound popularity, and before you know it there's going to be a Howard Payne origins movie that shows his adventures as the bullied misfit who needs to embrace the empowerment of being different. Because an anti-hero is still a hero, and that means: franchise!
Oh well, kay sirra sirra.

Of course it's possible to say that DIE HARD which also benefited from Jan de Bont's cinematography was the better one (IMDB seems to think so) and I would definitely agree that it was the one that rejuvenated the gloriously over-the-top blockbuster genre, but SPEED has the additional element of the physical experience.
Bomb threats happen in many stories, but watching the bus crashing through traffic without a moment of relief was often a palm-sweaty business.
It goes from one disaster scenario to the next, Howard Payne is unstoppable.
The last part in the metro wasn't really necessary and has a bit of a sequel feel to it but I guess the villain had to be stopped in an equally spectacular way.
And Sandra Bullock needed all the practice she could get as she would continue her career as the queen of disaster flicks.
I have no memory of SPEED 2, only that it happens on a boat. It's only a matter of time before I click "play!".

On the previous subject of origins sob stories, a counter-culture movement has arisen: the Poohniverse, and one of the latest additions is CINDERELLA'S CURSE.
I knew it was trash but I was curious to see how bad it was, and while I was watching it I entertained the possibility that it was one of those The Asylum blockbuster knockoffs (they don't care how good or bad the original blockbuster is).
But no, it's from the same producers as Pooh - Blood And Honey. Not that it makes any difference.
The villains in Cinderella's Curse are slasher-happy maniacs and via a CARRIE rip-off they all get their well deserved comeuppance. And then some.
I can't say that the film disappoints, it does what it says on the tin. Production and special effects are piss-poor but the performances are enthusiastic enough.
Actress Danielle Scott plays the badass stepmother and even in her last breath she keeps humiliating Cinderella. She would do just fine in a more convential version of the famous fairy tale.

Lo and behold, today I found out that there is another 2024 Cinderella horror film: CINDERELLA'S REVENGE. But it's still not a The Asylum production!

 

[Crimson]

I have the 1979 version on DVD, but can't remember the story at all, so perhaps I'm due a rewatch.

It would appear to be right up your alley -- a tawdry small town soap slowly overtaken by horror. It's as if Spielberg had spent more time developing Amity before the shark attacks started.

 

[DallasFanForever]

Plucking the Daisy (1956)

I had never seen this one before but had always heard about it so I decided to give it a try. Basically a French comedy film starring the beautiful Brigitte Bardot. It’s good for a few laughs but overall I found it to be just fair. I’d say it definitely has some entertainment value but the plot is kind of weak.

 

[Seaviewer]

maybe Michael Keaton toned down his performance.

First Batman and now Beetlejuice. I wonder what other characters Keaton might consider revisiting

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Amityville Horror (2005)

It's a very long time since I watched the 1979 version and I did consider rewatching that in the coming days. But I only had a small window yesterday, and Prime listed this remake's running time as a very manageable 1 hour 23 minutes. Why not, I thought, take advantage of the distance from the original to watch the remake in isolation... especially since I'm not that attached to the '79 version.

Firstly, Amazon lied about the running time. It's actually an hour and 29 minutes. And believe, me, those six extra minutes made a difference when I started watching the clock towards the end of what felt like a 2 hour plus film.

As mentioned, my memory of the first film is very dim, but I seem to remember an atmospheric film with the emphasis on psychological horror, with characters and audience questioning whether what we saw could be caused by something innocuous. The 2005 version leans into jump scares every five minutes, with cadaverous ghosts suddenly appearing in mirrors, in cupboards, or wherever (usually accompanied by a loud sting, which is what really causes the jump). I had a feeling I should have just stopped watching when the first ghost appeared, and it's times like this I wish I wasn't so all-in when it comes to watching something. Living characters in the film can see these corpses... Or not, depending what's convenient at that moment in time (in one of the most sigh-inducing moments, the ghost of a young girl took the hand of a living woman and placed the finger in the bullet hole on the ghost's forehead. For... reasons).

And for all the noisy, unsubtle action on screen, I found myself bored and tuning out in the final thirty minutes, mentally going over my to-do list.

Not helping matters, the main characters aren't very well-formed. I didn't find the Kathy character to be likeable at all (I got an icky vibe from the actress playing her. Information I've since read has validated that feeling), so when George became increasingly irritated with her I found myself sympathising with him.

It's set in the mid-Seventies, but doesn't successfully capture how that era felt beyond the usual stereotypical concessions to wardrobe and props. There are the expected anachronisms. And are we really expected to believe that this is the torso of a man whose work appears to be office-based, and who has no athletic equipment in their five bedroom home?

No amount of chopping wood is going to give these results.
​

It would appear to be right up your alley -- a tawdry small town soap slowly overtaken by horror. It's as if Spielberg had spent more time developing Amity before the shark attacks started.

Well, if I wasn't sold before...

I'm not sure when I'll get round to it, but this has definitely moved it onto my viewing list.