Saw Ed Norton’s character. That’s about when we shut it down. 20 minutes was a guess. I mainly killed it because my wife was unhappy with it. I may give it another shot at some point when I’m more in the mood for it; yesterday was a long day.
Watched The Banshees of Inisherin. Not perfect, but I enjoyed it very much. I love this type of film—period drama with beautiful cinematography and just a twist of subtle humor. Reminded me a little of Barry Lyndon in that respect. Quite a sad story, with a big heart.
Watched Amsterdam. The plot was a mess, but…I didn’t hate it. Interesting characters.
Re-watched The Color Purple, having last seen it decades ago. It still holds up well and is a solid early attempt by Spielberg, though I think it could have been much better if he tackled it after maturing more as a director. A bit too heavy-handed.
What have you done to Solange? A 1970’s giallo with a particularly nasty method of killing used by the murderer.
We just saw “A Christmas Story Christmas.”
I loved it. Almost as good as the original. The daughter was a hoot.
I am a huge fan of the original, and never tire of watching it. I’m not sure this one will demand repeated viewings, but we’ll see…
OK, what is the method?
Apart from in one case, he stabs the women in the vagina with a long knife. It’s a symbolic revenge for an abortion forced on his daughter.
I blurred out some plot in case you ever want to watch it.
I did the same yesterday (bored to death!) and came away thinking it was more profound than most viewers thought. This may not have been intentional, but i found it a hilarious parody of the concept of “reversal” in screenwriting. No sooner does any character express an emotion (and in Showgirls it is usually expressed at the top of that character’s lungs) than in the next scene she or he expresses the exact opposite.
This is a virtue in Screenwriting 101 where neophytes assume that once a character expresses one idea he or she is committed to that idea for the rest of the picture, so many sophisticated screenplays are dedicated to showing how characters change, often radically, but Showgirls takes this concept to such an extreme that I think it must be intentional.
One example (there are dozens): the crude stripclub boss played with incredible crudeness by Robert Davi makes a late return appearance, totally gratuitous, to show his kindness and thoughtfulness to the lead character.
You could invent a drinking game wherein you down a shot every time something happens here that is completely unanticipated and unforeseeable. You’ll be drunk inside a half hour.
A prostitute is killed in Se7en in a similar way, by a client forced to do the deed.
Do you also tend to forget the name of that guy she was married to a long time ago - Billy something?
Nope, never knew it. 
Oh, I get you. Sorry I’m a little slow!
Watched the original Knives Out and the new Glass Onion back-to-back last night as post-holiday family movie night, and I recommend the experience. Gets you into the rather old-fashioned and artificial “Agatha Christie plot-twisting murder mystery extravaganza” mindset.
Watched Disney’s animated box-office flop Strange World today. It’s very colourful, but that’s the best I can say about it. The plot is a bit lacklustre, it’s mostly filler to be dazzled by the visuals of blobby beasties lolloping around, and the characters are very annoying. I blame the marketing for its failure at making any profit, but I also see it a difficult one to categorise, or to make a compelling trailer for.
When I watched the BTS features for the movie Zootopia, they basically remade the whole of that one from the ground up when it wasn’t working. This one, Strange World, feels like they tried the same approach, but didn’t manage a cohesive whole by the end of it.
Young kids might get some kind of benefit from it, mostly being thrilled by the weird beasties’ wacky antics, but it is otherwise not worth anyone’s time.
The Lost City (Amazon prime). Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum, in a mashup of Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone. Light and breezy and occasionally quite funny, quite entertaining. Daniel Radcliffe and Brad Pitt are wonderful in their supporting roles.
Charade. I thought I’d seen it decades ago, but apparently I either forgot large chunks of it or I really never saw the whole movie, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Movies of this vintage (1963) don’t always hold up, but this “best movie Hitchcock never made” lives up to the hype. I think Audrey Hepburn looks and acts better in this movie than in any other role I’ve seen her in. Cary Grant is Cary Grant, but I didn’t find their age gap as annoying as I usually do when the gaps are this big. In the comments afterwards, they said Grant wanted Hepburn to be more of the aggressor in their relationship to make it less “creepy.” It worked.
Lots of plot twists, humor, and great performances by Walter Matthau, George Kennedy, James Coburn, and Ned Glass, and a wonderfully witty script.
And, of course, that very 60s Givency wardrobe.
I’m probably the last person to see Bird Box. I went in with no knowledge of the plot except it had something to do with blindfolds. I found it quite suspenseful and entertaining.
Followed that up with Matilda: The Musical. Funny, clever, and enjoyable even if the songs weren’t that memorable.
I watches “knives out” last night and…fine I suppose. Time passed and things happened.
Daniel Craig is no Poirot and that’s really what it felt like, a sub-par Agatha Christie knock-off. The cast is OK, Ana de Arnas is great and I’d be happy to see more of her, same with Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Shannon but other than that? Nothing to write home about. The old woman seemed pointless as did the many other characters and Craig’s central character himself seemed to come from nowhere and be fairly uninteresting.
The film-makers obviously thought to themselves " can we make a decent country-house twisty crime thriller with a quirky detective?" to which the answer appears to be “perhaps, sort of, in a way”
I enjoyed both movies, and yet I can’t disagree with anything in your take.
Perhaps it’s just that it’s so refreshing to see something different in the theaters, something that’s not a remake, reboot, or yet another superhero CGI fest.
There have been many comments about Banshees. Having just seen it last night, I will say that I pretty much agree with this assessment, except I would add “one of the most depressing movies I’ve seen in a long time”. I don’t necessarily mean that in a negative way – if you enjoy movies as well-made art, which this certainly was, then go for it. Ultimately I don’t think it’s really intended to be an allegory, but a depiction of a dysfunctional subculture on an isolated island off the coast of Ireland in 1923. The only principal character there who seems halfway normal is Siobhan, and she is astute enough to eventually get the hell out of there.
Another one I saw at the same time was Mr. Harrigan’s Phone, based on a short story by Stephen King and executive-produced by him. King’s films run a remarkable gamut from the exceptional (e.g.- Shawshank Redemption) to some real cash-grab stinkers. This one was more of a nothingburger, well acted but ultimately without much substance.
I know you said it wasn’t really meant as allegory, but it’s hard not to suspect that Siobhan represents the Irish diaspora.