It’s been a while since I’ve seen The Lion In Winter but it is definitely worth watching. Stellar performances all around.
The Innkeepers by Ti West. Starts like a wacky romcom, but goes spooky about half-way through. Sara Paxton is awfully cute. The commentary is fully of grade-school humor, but it’s clear they all had fun making the film. Between this and Last Night In Soho, he’s got some amazing ideas and a fun eye. Wish his films did better.
Definitely. Favorite lines (paraphrased):
“Right, we’re off to Rome.”
“Rome? Why Rome?”
“That’s where they keep the Pope, isn’t it?”
Just saw Nope (in the IMAX theatre no less) last night. I had high hopes, but was a bit underwhelmed. Good suspense and effects, but too many unanswered questions. Reminded me a bit of “X-Files” episodes where so much is left unanswered.
Still scratching my head about What the whole episode with the chimpanzee killing the cast and the “floating” shoe had to do with anything
“Last Night in Soho” was by Edgar Wright. But if you like Ti West check out “X” and “The House of the Devil” for some more of his style of horror films. “X” is IMO one of the best films of 2022 so far.
DANGIT! I felt so cultured for a moment!
Oh yes, I’ve seen both. He really does have a flair for vintage-y horror.
It was first shown in theatres:
The Lion in Winter, my god, every time I see it I marvel at how the director kept all those egos in check. Wonderful acting, superb dialogue
Just watched Old Guard. Action movie about a team of mercs, who have a little bit extra, but to say what the extra is would be an unforgiveable spoiler. Good fun movie.
Yeah, I like the original so much more than the remake. Both rather short-change the historical prince John of course, but at least Nigel Terry in the 1968 film isn’t too bad of a mangling into a half-bright conniver. Rafe Spall’s John in the remake is just an embarrassing buffoon.
Just watched Last Night in Soho. I went in without even a clue about the genre- well, I saw Edgar Wright in the credits so I thought “comedy maybe?” I wasn’t even quite sure until half way in. Every plot twist was completely unexpected - it’s either a really well written film, or my brain’s just a little slow today.
Actually that’s one of the things I liked about Nope. I thought the special effects were more uneven, with some of them being frankly pretty unconvincing, but maybe I should have seen it in IMAX! But the fact that not everything was exhaustively spelled out for viewers and you had to think a bit about possible implications was IMHO a good thing.
I think it was mostly just setting the horror tone, which IMHO again it did very effectively. It was also reinforcing the movie’s repeated theme of PLEASE DO NOT GO AROUND ARROGANTLY ASSUMING THAT NONHUMAN ANIMALS CAN ALWAYS JUST BE MANIPULATED AND DOMINATED TO MAKE THEM DO WHATEVER YOU WANT LIKE THEY’RE SOME KIND OF TOYS OR SLAVES, THEY WILL FUCK YOUR SHIT UP.
Also: balloon!
I am okay with unexplained things. But one of the questions I came away with was how did the main character (son/brother) determine the flying thing was “an organism” (single) and not truly a UFO (manned with an entire crew) ? From all they observed it could have just as easily been an ET that was 1) abducting people and 2) discarding the metallic materials
I did get the “message”. But they kept focusing on the seemingly gravity defying shoe at the end of the chimp flashback scene. Like there was some other “force” involved. It would have been nice to at least tie that to something
I assumed that that was mostly just OJ’s personal guess/intuition/conviction. He’s obviously very much an “animals guy”, and clearly presented as possibly somewhat neuroatypical? So I thought they were going for a bit of a Temple Grandin vibe, “here’s this guy who is not necessarily the best communicator with people but strongly connects to animals and understands how they’re feeling and behaving”. And luckily his instinctive assessment of the individual-organism nature of the UFO/UAP turned out to be correct. He could have been wrong, of course, but that would have been a different movie.
Oh, I see. Hmm, I thought that was supposed to be just a visual accident where the shoe from that particular perspective (of the terrified young boy hiding under the table) happened to be propped on/against something hidden behind it so it looked unsupported. (Maybe there was an inference that a camera left recording caught that same angle, I’m not sure?) And the shoe became, in that boy’s traumatic unforgettable memories of the scene and possibly also in the “iconography” of the tragedy, a sort of visual icon. But I didn’t get the impression that we were supposed to believe that the shoe was actually being suspended midair by supernatural forces. (Though it might have been visually foreshadowing the midair suspension of the alien’s victims? Dunno, I am not cinematically sophisticated enough to know when directors are doing things on purpose.)
Damn, maybe we need to move the Nope discussion to a different thread with open spoilers, so much of these posts is spoiler-tagged that it feels like my glasses are all smeared up.
Opened a couple days ago.
The Gray Man is one of the worst movie I’ve seen released in 2022. I am half-way through it and I’m considering quitting it. If I was in the theater…well, I either would have enjoyed it more with the big screen or I would have considered leaving and getting a refund.
I rarely quit movies. I’m straining to remember the last movie I did not finish. I may very well just push this one behind me and forget I ever started it.
Boring, generic, just expensive looking.
I happened to see this last night and just checked to see if anyone else had mentioned it.
I really think that both the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes ratings are unfairly low. It was a pretty good thriller. I do agree with the critics’ consensus on RT that it “works as a suspenseful thriller, yet isn’t completely satisfying”.
I recommend it and am not giving away any spoilers, but I did think the ending – although pretty damn good if you think about what it really means – could have been better.
Mainly my positive impression is that I didn’t have especially high expectations and found it more intriguing than I had expected. It tries – with mixed results – to be something of a morality play that uses the Holocaust as the dramatic device.
Judgment at Nuremburg (1961) - with major stars … Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Judy Garland, a completely shit-faced Montgomery Clift, Marlene Deitrich, Werner Klemper from Hogan’s Heroes, even Bill Shatner is in there.
And there’s Maximillian Schell who just leaves every ounce of it out there and picked up the Oscar for his troubles.
I knew this is a movie I should have seen by now (and truth be told, I missed the beginning and I was cooking a meal through part of it, so I’ll probably watch it again) so I’m glad I managed to catch it now. That said, I defy anyone to listen to Lancaster’s “confession speech” and not think, “holy shit … Trump.”
Watched Hunger last night. Film about Bobby Sands and his tribulations and hunger strike in the Maze Prison in '81.
Pretty hard to watch, and not for everybody, but it was so well made. Might be hard to follow, somewhat, if you don’t have a little knowledge on the back story (you just get kind of dumped into the story), but even if you don’t know a thing about what it’s all about, still a good watch (if you can stomach it). The shots, the pacing, the acting- all superb. A very good, yet troubling film.