What was the last film you watched?

[Mel O'Drama]

When a film makes me sigh a lot it can only mean two things:
a) I'm massively annoyed
b) I'm feeling incredibly tense.
Thankfully, in this case it was answer b.

You had me worried for a minute there.

First surprise: Debra Messing! Last time I saw her was in BROS (as her funny self).

Yes. I knew she'd done some dramatic roles, but don't think I'd ever actually watched one before.

And I didn't even know I was watching her until after the fact anyway, which gave me an objective viewpoint.

The moment a character realises there might be something wrong is always the most gutpunching part.

Yes, and there were a number of these in this film that built throughout. I also loved the way we were allowed to share some of these little realisation as an audience because all of the clues were captured on-screen in some way (like the laptop in the background).

I also liked that it offered the opportunity to put the pieces together ahead of time. For instance, there was one piece of information that the mother had on her list of the daughter's friends that wasn't acknowledged on-screen. The camera just whizzed past it, but I took it in and wondered if it was important. And it turned out it was very, VERY important. You didn't need to see it for the story to pay off, but it added another layer and made me feel a little bit clever.

Yes, when did a séance in a film ever become a good thing

It was perfected in 1945 with Blithe Spirit, so anything since then is simply unnecessary.

Funny this topic should come up today when just last night I watched an episode of British soap Brookside which featured a sèance (the series' second in as many years. Technically last night's was probably classed as a spiritualist reading, but since they sat round a table in a darkened room with dimmed lights and the medium asked "Is anybody there" it was certainly séance-adjacent).

but the worst part is when the characters dismiss the #1 instinct: survival.

Perhaps the most frustrating horror trope of all.

This film made me sigh because of answer a).

Ha!

Does this really have to happen in the middle of the night?

How ironic that your internet/system should treat you this way as you try to watch a film with this particular title.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Memory (2022)

Hmmmmm - as I did a quick search for this poster, I came across images like this:

Spoiler

This is why I try to watch these things with no knowledge at all. And with an open mind. My worst nightmare would be forming an opinion ahead of watching because it's the popular one. Nobody's going to peer pressure me into liking or hating a film.

Of course, I have no idea if this is the case with these videos. It's possible they may have good reasons beyond "Rotten Tomatoes and four influencers tell me I'm not supposed to like this". But I do think enjoyment of a film is so often relative to expectations.

Take me, last night. I was drawn in by seeing Liam Neeson's attractively rugged profile on the poster and thinking that was reason enough to watch. Especially given my enjoyment of The Commuter and Non-Stop. Again, I knew nothing of the film beyond the name and a few lines of text mentioning an assassin-for-hire and thought it would be interesting to see Liam in this kind of role. It was made in 2022, and a film this recent showing for no cost is often a bit of a red flag as to its quality. As I started watching, it could have sworn I saw something saying it was a Prime Original (even if I can now find nothing to substantiate this) which further checked my expectations. But then Guy Pearce's name came up on screen and the thought of these two sharing the screen did, admittedly, raise them again.

I won't get hung up on whether or not this is great, good, painful or the worst, but I will say that if this is indeed Liam Neeson's "worst movie" I'd be more than delighted to watch all of them. Twice. It didn't grip me as much as The Commuter (and perhaps that film has raised my expectations of any Liam Neeson film), but I found it engaging and absorbing enough. And it's a different kind of story, after all.

I was a bit taken aback with some of the violence. Not that I'm overly squeamish or prudish, but it's more that it feels a little more real than the usual Hollywood stuff. Yes, there are guns and bombs and whatnot, but it also has the more hands on variety during its fight scenes, with faces getting smashed onto bars or someone getting thrown at a toilet basin which shatters from the force (and even more impressive, it is the actual actor in question taking these falls. Either some trickery is used or they must have employed some stunt people in the cast). This morning I now see on the poster that it's from the director of Casino Royale (I assume it's the Daniel Craig version rather than the David Niven) and on reflection some of the scenes have Bondian echoes. In fact there's one scene where Neeson walks directly towards two firing gunmen out in the open whilst firing his own gun where I remember thinking he looked very much like Daniel Craig's Bond.

Storywise there's quite a lot going on, but nothing that's not easily absorbed. While I may not feel inclined to sell it as the best thing ever committed to screen, neither do I feel compelled to make an outraged video in which I look very cross about having chosen to watch. For this viewer, it was an entertaining enough way to pass a couple of hours.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

And I didn't even know I was watching her until after the fact anyway, which gave me an objective viewpoint.

When I move the mouse (just a tiny bit) the Prime window shows the actors names and faces. Sometimes I forget it doesn't work that way with DVDs.

but it added another layer and made me feel a little bit clever.

Not me, I'm prone to false conclusions and sometimes I take the information the wrong way to such extent that I need to watch the scene again.
Case in point: the stock model. A delicious shocker, and very much in style of the film's concept it is all about the online discovery. But in a split second I had already "figured out" what it meant and who she was.

The way the story is presented in the real world (news coverage) does make it look as if the time frame exceeds the crucial five days.

How ironic that your internet/system should treat you this way as you try to watch a film with this particular title.

Ha, I hadn't even made that connection.

Memory (2022)

Have you ever seen Guy Pearce in Christopher Nolan's MEMENTO (2000)?

 

[Willie Oleson]

DEADPOOL (2016)



Apart from the big three - Superman, Batman, Spider-Man - I have no idea if the superhero characters in modern cinema are created for cinema or based on classic superhero comics.
The Green Lantern (2011) was a nice surprise and I probably would have watched more of it, especially given its suggestive cliffhanger, but again, before the film I had never heard of this superhero.
Prime is very eager to sell me Deadpool vs. Wolverine but I'm not interested in all that cross-over tomfoolery. Batman vs. The Green Hornet was not one of my favourite episodes, and come to think of it I wasn't particularly impressed by the combination of guest villains (except for the THE MOVIE version).

Despite all this I had somehow registered that there was something different about Deadpool, a fact not to be remembered again until I did when the thumbnail appeared on my screen.
In a moment of outrageous spontaneity I clicked on it and when I saw the funny opening credits I felt my expectations increasing.
Could this be the other KICK-ASS?

Sadly, it's not. The humour in Kick-Ass is deadpan and the story is show-don't-tell which means that every jaw-dropping or hilarious moment lands.
Deadpool's self-awareness and crass presentation actually works in the very beginning but it becomes predictable and mind-numbing pretty fast.
It also omits the superhero theme of transformation. Ryan Gosling Reynolds is badass in his pre-Deadpool incarnation and becomes just a little bit badasser as Deadpool.
To be fair, the story is about a personal vendetta rather than a "saving the world" kind of thing but at the same time it uses the spectacle from the more traditional superhero films and I think it failed in having their cake and eat it.

As for the action, it's all superfast and flashy CGI stuff that I find impossible to follow, it's a far cry from the 20st century nail-biting action in Mad Max and Speed (just to name a few).
As for the nudity, enough to take the viewer out of the family adventure comfort zone (especially in that R1 part of the world) but definitely not enough of it as a selling point. The focus on Ryan's bum in his Deadpool outfit is actually the most sexy moment.

I feel baited and I only have myself to blame.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

When I move the mouse (just a tiny bit) the Prime window shows the actors names and faces. Sometimes I forget it doesn't work that way with DVDs.

And the thing is I was watching on Prime (albeit on the TV, but there's still the option to see who is in a scene). Still, the added mystery brought yet another layer to the film.

Case in point: the stock model. A delicious shocker, and very much in style of the film's concept it is all about the online discovery. But in a split second I had already "figured out" what it meant and who she was.

I smiled that they'd done a search for "cute girls" or something like that, but still found one that looked a bit evil.

There were a lot of red herrings, weren't there? And I was taken in by some as well.

Have you ever seen Guy Pearce in Christopher Nolan's MEMENTO (2000)?

I haven't, but I've heard good things about it. One for the list, I think.

Come to that, I don't think I've watched all that many GP films. Priscilla, a couple of recent Aliens and one of the Iron Man films (the worst one, sadly) spring to mind and not much beyond that.

...Except years' worth of Neighbours, of course.

I have no idea if the superhero characters in modern cinema are created for cinema or based on classic superhero comics.

Mostly it's the latter.

Deadpool's self-awareness and crass presentation actually works in the very beginning but it becomes predictable and mind-numbing pretty fast.

I think we had the same experience with this one:

I knew little about this film other than the tone being offbeat and the film being R-rated. On these bases it could have gone either way.

It fell down on the side of simply not being my thing. It raised a couple of weak smiles and small titters, but the humour was typically unsubtle American gross-out stuff that clubs one around the head and feels tedious rather than shocking. The fruity language was so overdone in the first ten or fifteen minutes it felt as though it was there simply to ensure the film got its adult rating and appeal to those who may be insecure about seeing a lower-rated film because it's not adult enough. There's also the fact that the irreverent tone makes it feel rather like a poor man's Guardians Of The Galaxy.

On the plus side, I found the second two-thirds of the film a little more watchable (I considered aborting my viewing early on as it was boring me). It was good to finally see a cinematic Colossus with a Russian accent. And Negasonic's costume feels as close as we've come to seeing the classic X-uniform brought to life.

I'll probably watch the sequel in due course for completion, but I wouldn't feel particularly deprived if I didn't.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE THING (2011)



I know it's a controversial thing to say but I don't like the 1982 version. It was perfectly fine when I watched as a child but a recent rewatch turned out to be major disappointment. I think it was especially the cheesy dialogue that annoyed me the most.
Therefore this remake only had to do one thing to make it work: not doing that.

Apparently it's a prequel but it's the same thing with a spaceship tacked on to it, and instead of watching God knows how many ALIEN sequels you can kill two birds with one stone by watching The Thing 2011.
21st century remakes means longer and BIGGER and this one's certainly no exception, well actually it is since it's a few minutes shorter than John Carpenter's film.
The story looks very familiar even if you haven't watched the first two films (I guess The Faculty could also be considered a "The Thing" remake) and it's very effective in all its simplicity.
The cast is slightly problematic because "those damn Scandinavians all look alike" and that includes one of the American characters. One black actor is sidelined rather quickly only to come back for his obligatory death scene. That can't be a spoiler.

It looks good for a modern creature feature and there's no holding back in the carnage department. It was one of those rare occasions when I thought it would look much better on a big cinema screen.
I wish the very last part of the story had been based on a mistake, it could have given the film that extra bit of oomph in the style of THE MIST.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

THE THING (2011)

Crikey. I didn't even know there was a prequel/remake (premake?).

It certainly sounds enticing from your description.

 

[Willie Oleson]

ELMER GANTRY (1960)



Every time I watch Burt Lancaster I wonder, is he a good actor or a good bluffer? I guess it doesn't make much difference but the idea supports my conclusion that the role of Elmer Gantry was tailor-made for the Burt.
As a charismatic but unsuccessful salesman who always smiles too hard and isn't too concerned about moral and other people's feelings, he worms his way into the entourage of evangelist Sister Sharon Falconer thinking it could be the sale of the century.
What follows is an interesting journey for several characters, and even though the critique of the religious show business is obvious the story doesn't condemn its characters. Quite a spectacular ending, too.
Some discussions and home truths keep it all in balance rather than a one-sided attack, and I must say it's been on mind the entire day.

It's a very colourful and energetic film that doesn't waste any scenes in its two and a half hours running time.
Despite its many awards (won and nominated) Elmer Gantry doesn't often show up in online Top "this" or Top "thats".

Source: DVD, German/English language with optional German/English subtitles. And they've used a part of the original artwork, I always love that.

 

[Willie Oleson]

ACCIDENT (1967)



Written by Harold Pinter and directed by Joseph Losey, they have also worked together on The Servant (1963) - which I love - and The Go-Between (1971) which I didn't like at all. So it was going to be 50/50 for The Accident.
Unfortunately I have to report that it's even worse than The Go-Between.
For a film that is supposed to be "intellectually exciting and absorbing" (according to the DVD sleeve) it doesn't have an awful lot to say.
And when they do speak it feels as if I have to pull the words out of their mouths.

Middle-aged Oxford professors and a sexy foreign student. There, that is actually the spoiler for this story.
To be fair I already knew that but I had hoped for something like Bouquet Of Barbed Wire - The Movie, something for Dirk Bogarde to sink his teeth into.

The only interesting titbit is that Bogarde's on-screen son is played by Maxwell Cauldfield.

And I can see a little bit of LB Colby in him.
But apart from that I am not amused.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE POPE'S EXORCIST (2023)



This film poster describes the tone and genre very well: it's The Exorcist meets Indiana Jones, and it's fun and completely over the top.
In that regard it's better than any of the The Exorcist knockoffs that have tried (and obviously failed) to recreate the sickening atmosphere of the seventies classic.
Apart from the very last act, Russell Crowe's own histrionics are practically non-existent as he guides us through the story with witty and soft-spoken humbleness.
While all the spectacle is entertaining enough, Crowe's performance of Father Gabriele Amorth is the film's strongest selling point.
His Italian speech and later the Italofied English is most convincing whether it's accurate or not (a native English tongue speaking French is usually far more noticeable).
The cheeky suggestion that this story could spin off 199 sequels made me laugh out loud. For what it's worth, I think they should do it.
Italian Russell Crowe might be the only man who can destroy Marvel.

If you're going to watch it I'd suggest a double bill with Russell's pulpy Unhinged (2020). Which reminds me that I still need to watch Romper Stomper.

 

[Willie Oleson]

GLADIATOR (2000)



Basically it's a spaghetti western in the arena, and there's no reason why that shouldn't happen. But Gladiator takes itself a little bit too seriously and it also lacks an iconic score.
There's a lot of exposition in both script and scenery which makes the film drag and it also undermines the cartoonish tone of the story.

The Ancient Rome theme is great for talkie scheming dramas like I, Claudius - or hunxploitation stories like the Spartacus series (or Caligula) when the viewer is sort of complicit in the villainy of evil murders and white muscle slavery.
Maximus' larger than life wholesomeness and the story's pseudo-philosophical tone didn't do Gladiator any favours. It's revenge porn done wrong, and the two and a half hours running-time is very much felt.
First rewatch since the early 2000s, I don't remember if I liked it the first time.

 

[Seaviewer]

Christmas on the Farm (2021 TV movie)
A bit of fluff about an author who writes about life on an Australian farm - and then has to fake it in reality to impress the publisher.

 

[Willie Oleson]

ADAPTATION (2002)



I had never heard of this film before but I was intrigued by the short description of a daft plot, and since the image showed Nicolas Cage and Tilda Swinton I assumed it would be intentionally daft. Maybe something like Being John Malkovich.
Then the film starts on the set of Being John Malkovich and it turns out that this film is about the writer of Being John Malkovich who is trying to write a screenplay based on a novel about Orchids, written by Susan Orlean who is really the co-writer of Adaptation.
It's such a meta Russian doll thing I feel my head is still spinning. Oh, and it's not about Tilda Swinton it's about Meryl Streep.
I think it's a fantastic and delirious story about not being a story constructed in such way that it becomes a story anyway. But who writes what?

 

[Willie Oleson]

JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961)



I don't think I could call it a beautiful film, but it appears to be made with intellect and respect, and shows the frustrating complexity of WWII.
To talk about this film is as difficult as the situation shown on screen: how to focus on the matter at hand when it represents horrors of this magnitude?
The one thing that stood out to me was the comment "what good will it do?" and I guess the answer is "none" because a story like this could never have a satisfying conclusion. Sometimes we need an awful conclusion to put things into perspective, to make some sense of it and, optimistically, hope to learn something from it.
It's even beyond damage control and I jokingly started to think that we should have these trials before the bad stuff happens, and then I realise that that's not too different from Hitler's vision and practices.
As for fighting for democracy and the good way of living, especially since the story has a strong American input, I find it increasingly difficult to understand what that means in the grand scheme of things. Unlimited consumerism that destroys the planet, insane profits from producing and selling weapons? Is that it? Is that our goal?
It almost makes a good case for communism but I don't want that because I'm one of the lucky ones who can profit from the democracy and freedom and consumerism that we have here. Only goes to show how easy it is to be guilty.
I'm going to watch something completely different after this post otherwise I'll be tossing and turning all night long.

The screenplay is impeccable and they get the very best out of the international cast. It does get a bit shouty here and there but the case kinda justifies it.
It took me a few minutes to understand the difference between the real English/American language and the spoken English language that actually represents German language (albeit with a strong European accent).
Of course, if they had included the ongoing translations for accuracy then the film would be twice as long, and it's interesting to see how they play different languages.
The German housekeeping couple are fantastic, they sort of embody the whole tragedy without saying anything about it and even avoid talking about it.
A very impressive film that doesn't look dated at all.

 

[DallasFanForever]

GLADIATOR (2000)

I’ve tried to watch it a few times but never could quite get into it. Will you be seeing the new Gladiator film that’s currently out in the cinema? I’m not hearing good things about it to be honest.

 

[Willie Oleson]

DESPICABLE ME 4 (2024)



After the wife and the brother here comes the baby, and also yet another larger than life villain.
Broadly speaking, I think this type of comedy is about repetition and familiarity and to tell the jokes in different ways and that's very much what's going on in chapter four.
The problem is always that the best supervillain, Gru himself, can't be a supervillain and he's got softer with every subsequent episode.
Therefore it's not surprising that my favourite sub-plot in DM4 is the heist at Lycée Pas Bon courtesy of wannabe-supervillainess Poppy Prescott, and Principal Übelschlecht completely overshadows Maxime Le Mal who was created as the film's main nemesis.

I love language caricature and Maxime is properly voiced but the cockroach mutation is too fantastical and gross for my taste. The best part is that the actual cockroaches aren't used to advance the plot.
DM4 features two copies of Cruella De Vil: Maxime's sidekick Valentina, and Mayflower resident Melora, and all the previous villains make a cameo appearance in one of the last scenes.
Some of the minions are getting "incredibled" and I really love the joke about the window cleaner in peril.

It was a given that any sequel would no longer have the novelty of the first film but overall Despicable Me 4 delivers non-stop jokes and over-the-top action and I might watch it again. Actually I don't remember much of the previous instalments so there's an idea.
I don't watch many computer animated films therefore I was easily bedazzled by the perfectly crafted details in some of the scenes.

Not necessarily this one, but it made me laugh out loud.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Will you be seeing the new Gladiator film that’s currently out in the cinema?

Since I don't love the much celebrated original I just might like the much criticised sequel, but I won't pay to watch it.

 

[Willie Oleson]

December is Film Month and we've got to move fast before the awful Christmas movies take over the WWTLFYW thread.

NIGHTCRAWLER (2014)



A very apt title because it's about modern-day vampires looking for blood to be consumed by the viewers of competing TV news broadcasts.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays a quirky, fast-talking, self-educated small-time criminal desperate to land a steady job, and his ultimate career choice happens by chance rather than something that's been planned from the very beginning.
It's all about opportunity and to take those opportunities without hesitation, and I guess it could be seen as a satire on the actual news vultures who are always ready to poke their cameras in to the misery of other people.
The story becomes more of a story when TV news honcho Nina (Rene Russo) pressures him to deliver what he promised, and it is also from that point on that the story becomes a little bit more predictable but nonetheless very exciting.
In a funny way, the film imitates the story and the joke is on the viewer because we're basically in the same position as the bloodthirsty Nina.

Nightcrawler shows, once again, that it is possible to have a villainous protagonist but it usually only works in a more cynical, guilty-pleasure kind of context.
It's not a game changer and it doesn't reach the heights (or depths) of films like American Psycho or Nocturnal Animals, but if you're looking for a fun and well-made B movie then this film is a good choice. Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed are a very entertaining duo.

 

[Willie Oleson]

CLERKS (1994)



I wish I could call it "over the counter culture" but the film poster already does that.
Via-via I discovered that this is a 1990s indie cult hit (the American "Trainspotting"?) and information like that always needs to be verified.

The crudeness and filthy, deadpan humour is somewhat similar to the John Waters/Andy Warhol films but it is juxtaposed by disproportionately mature dialogue and they even manage to produce a little food for thought.
There's no compromise and some parts are very boring but it's all for the greater good (I think!).
Caitlin, the holy grail of girlfriends, gets knocked off her pedestal in a deliciously filthy twist.
I'm sure there's a lot more to say about this film but it was very late and I was tired when I watched it therefore it goes straight on the re-watch list.
Oh wait, there's another thing. One of the male characters (well, it couldn't be more than one character) is called Randal and that just didn't make any sense. It sounds like parents getting a little too creative with naming the child,
On the other hand it's also realistic because we all have a cousin, male of female, with a name that sticks out like a sore thumb. A name that begs to be mocked.

This is stupid lazy Randal, btw. (warning: profanity alert)

Edit: the public announcement of a random fictional character getting married is very soapy.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Oddly, I had never really seen FAR FROM HEAVEN (2002) although I'd certainly heard about it and always meant to watch it. There's been so much Douglas Sirkian conversation about the look and style of the film, and one can certainly understand why. A typically prim, Connecticut post-war housewife (Julianne Moore) eventually learns her husband (Dennis Quaid) needs inversion conversion, leading to her attraction to her African-American gardener (Dennis Haysbert) during the fall of 1957.

It gets the overall vibe of the late-'50s about as right as any movie could be expected to do in the twenty-first century -- the clothes, the production design, the gestures and body language (although Quaid's hair is a bit too long for the period)... Cinema sure couldn't pull off this kind of detail in the '70s or the '80s (although that improved dramatically by the '90s)... The camerawork, too, is very evocative.

Shockingly few motion pictures have ever made much of an attempt to vividly capture the season of autumn, but this one makes a decent stab at it. There is usually something so effectively nostalgic about fall and winter when it's used in a movie, especially a period movie -- which is strange, since fall and winter happen pretty much every year. But it's particularly resonant when used specifically to summon the late-'50s, for some reason (the aspirations of idealized Americana of that decade?). The cozy little lies.