Watched The French Dispatch. Everything you want from a Wes Anderson film, although the middle story with Francine McDormand could have been shorter. It was also odd that her character didn’t get a Kansas debrief with the Bill Murray character like the other correspondents. It would have been fun to see the editor suss out the parts of the story she left out. Like sleeping with the protagonist and writing his manifesto.
Watched Redcon-1 over the weekend; yet another zombie film. Twiddle your thumbs instead.
I watched the rest of it last night. I wish I hadn’t. 
Just an unpleasant movie. No real value in my opinion.
Some recent viewings that don’t have any gore.
Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom- Bhutan’s (yes, that Bhutan) submission for Best International Feature, on the Oscar shortlist. A sweet movie, surprisingly moving, and one that rewards the patient viewer. Set in one of the most remote villages in the world, it also shows that Chloe Zhang isn’t the only director who can successfully work with non-actors in leading roles. (I would pay to watch a sequel starring Pem Zam. I hope she makes it out of the village when she grows up.)
The Pink Cloud- A really good allegory for the COVID pandemic, written in 2017 and shot in 2019. It catalogs the slow disintegration of people trapped in isolation. No surprises, but also no unrealistic operatic, soap opera arcs, just good solid performances by talented actors.
The King’s Daughter- As bad as the reviews say it is. Finished in 2014, it is a nearly incoherent mess. It is hard to say whether the actors are giving terrible performances or if the script and direction just forces them into the terrible performances. The romantic leads have nearly zero chemistry, despite the fact that the actors fell in love on the set and are now married with two kids. No gore though (maybe it could have used a little?)
If that’s the one I think it is, I watched it on TV about a year ago and found it absolutely worthless. Poor acting, poor script… I don’t like to be nasty but I found nothing of value there.
TCMF-2L
I’ll be nasty for you – absolutely nothing of value there. And I tend to be quite forgiving with horror pix. Even the headshot CGI was pathetic. Sheesh!
Nobody on HBO. Bob Odenkirk like you’ve never seen him. Christopher Lloyd, too. This isn’t high art, but it’s fairly entertaining.
I just rewatched this. Funny that we had two big bus fight scenes in one release year…I’m going to go with Nobody’s being vastly better.
A friend of mine worked on the VFX for this movie, and had a lot of stories to tell. I think it was just a vanity project for a never-directed-before talentless fool with money to burn.
One review I read described it (paraphrasing) as a gender swapped Shape of Water but with a director with no talent for filmmaking.
The Silencing (Prime) - Listed in their ‘Top Ratings’ queue I thought I’d give it a try going in blind.
This mystery/thrillers main protagonist is an ex-trapper living on his Canadian wilderness gaming preserve attempts to drink away the pain of losing his teenage daughter years ago. However more girls end up missing and the Sheriff might have a lead as it could be related to our trapper. Ex-trapper sees some odd stuff on his trail cams and goes to investigate and finds bizarre clues.
It was alright. Some corny dialogue and a few plot holes here and there and some missing pieces even at the end, but the acting was pretty good and the plot kept you guessing and surprised. A solid B grade, I think. I don’t need to see it again, but I didn’t waste my evening. I like Zahn McClarnon, I’m glad to see him in anything.
I watched The Lone Ranger from 2013 yesterday. I know a lot of people were tired of Johnny Depp’s nonsense by this point and that contributed heavily to its negative reviews, but I try to separate myself from off-screen antics when I watch something, and I enjoyed the film, both the first time I saw it and now. It’s a fun adventure and deserved better reactions.
Now that both Depp and Armie Hammer are personas-non-grata, it’s kind of good no sequels were made, but it’s still a shame it wasn’t a hit.
Depp is persona-non-grata? I thought a lot of folks thought he got a completely bad wrap and that Amber Heard is the one lying.
It’s mixed, but either way, his star has definitely fallen.
I can’t tell you what really happened, but I’ve noticed that the pro-Depp crowd seems to have a strong incel component. Take that as you will.
That said, the real reason his reputation is in the trash is that he’s made a very long series of flops - and the public has grown tired of the self-indulgent “characters” he always seems to play. He’s become a bad parody of himself, which is a shame, because he was a pretty good actor once.
Watched Finch last night (Apple TV), as did with several others upthread. Hanks is good, as always; the robot is cute; the dog is adorable. But the story has a fatal flaw: Nothing happens.
Hanks has made 2 movies for Apple (Greyhound and Finch), neither of which is particularly good. His reputation is in danger of besmirchment. 
J. Edgar (2011), directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role. It’s mentioned upthread only once and very briefly.
Everyone seems to agree that DiCaprio does an outstanding job. I was surprised, because, after just a few minutes into the film, it looked like an unlikely role for him, with all the makeup (Hoover’s later years) and the weird accent. But he pulls it off very well, and there are a few scenes toward the end that are just about all I can expect from an actor, because he absolutely disappears into his character. I noticed it the most when he had no lines and it was just the look on his face and/or his body language.
In that sense, I think the film might have benefited from a director who would have taken the time to get better takes, which Eastwood famously prefers not to do. Every new film of his that I see confirms in my mind that he’s the most overrated professional in the business, and I say that only to counter claims that he’s among the all-time greats. In my uninformed opinion as a consumer of art, he’s good at some things and just okay at the rest, and most of his success is due to him having surrounded himself with talented collaborators. It seems to me that his best qualities are setting up shots (use of cameras) and getting the job done (dammit).
Others appearing in the film also deliver fine performances, and there are some heavyweights here like Judi Dench and Naomi Watts, although I think the script didn’t give them much opportunity to do their stuff, especially Watts, whose participation in the film is reduced to a series of grim, tight-lipped reactions. The story told here is very gray and opaque, which is probably appropriate for the subject matter (paranoia, control, concealment of intentions), although, in conjunction with Eastwood’s preference for dim lighting and subdued colors, the result is not very exciting to look at. There’s not much of a cinemaworthy story to tell, either, IMO. The Hoover character seems creepy, he does creepy things along the way, and, by the end, his creepiness is confirmed. Not a very satisfying arc. I won’t go into details, although there’s really nothing to spoil or even surprise us by the end of the film. Maybe some will be surprised; I saw it coming, and I’m not particularly astute like that.
Despite my criticism, I have to say that I enjoyed the film, especially certain parts of it. The story probably doesn’t transfer easily to screen or stage, and I suspect I would have enjoyed it less if I had been more familiar with Hoover and the events surrounding his life. After seeing it once, I’d say that, while it’s clearly an above-average film, it falls a little flat in the storytelling, and maybe that wasn’t anyone’s fault.
Free with prime. Meh. A couple days after we watched it Mrs. L asked me, “How did that end, again?” and we had to think for a few minutes. Quite forgettable.
It/he was a tough subject - almost opaque in actions, a very much ‘behind the scenes’ actor; but very effective. Perhaps, “J. Edgar, Vampire Hunter” if ever a sequel is done. 