Thank you.
Totally agree about Quiz Lady, a sarcastic yet ultimately sweet story, and it even comes with a bittersweet cameo that I won’t divulge here. I will say, however, that Will Farrell is in the movie (he’s an Executive Producer), and he doesn’t suck.
I enjoyed (if that’s the right word, perhaps ‘appreciated’ is better given the subject matter) Killers of the Flower Moon, and it felt more like 2.5 hrs than 3.5 to me, but I agree that the stuff from the editor (and Scorsese?) about banning intervals was ridiculous. Wouldn’t they rather people went for a ‘comfort break’ during a brief pause, rather than miss some of the film? Weird attitude from them.
Quiz Lady is on Disney+ in the UK - saw it pop up but haven’t watched it yet.
As far as I know, there’s only ever been a problem with the kind of links that are on a line by themselves, causing Discourse to attempt to generate a preview box. I think you can provide an external link without any issues, like this or like this: https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ
I figured Will Farrell, who hosts the Quiz Show in the movie, would be a massive jerk character once the TV cameras turn off. It just seems like the type of character he would play. Nice on TV, jerk behind the scenes. It is not much spoiler, and hopefully will motivate others to see this, to say that his character ends up being nice both on and off camera in this movie.
I love that Awkwafina plays the nerd and Sandra Oh plays the wild child, so to speak. It’s a reversal of what is expected and it works super well.
I will say. Sandra Oh is one of my least favorite actresses. I’ve never understood her appeal, but she is terrific in this and I admire her for giving such a fun and well-done performance.
It’s in my top 10 of the year so far and was just out of nowhere for me.
“Depends”?
The opening minutes of Sarah Polley’s character waking up to the unimaginable horror both inside her home and outside were incredibly fear inducing.
Fast zombies. Very fast.
Sorry, not quite sure what you mean there!
Adult diapers.
Ah I see
Killers of the Flower Moon has been mentioned upthread. Here’s a review.
As many here will know, Martin Scorsese’s latest film is based on a true story from 100 years ago, in which whites in Oklahoma conspired to murder Native Americans for their oil money.
The sets and cinematography were outstanding. Robert De Niro was great. And the film makes a real effort to portray the Native Americans as three-dimensional individuals and to depict their culture authentically.
One drawback was that the murders are so flagrant, and the main Native American character so bewildered, that it detracts from the film’s dramatic tension.
All in all, this doesn’t rank among Scorsese’s best work, but it’s still well worth seeing.
I’d agree with that. ‘Average’ Scorsese is still ‘very good’ in the grand scheme of things.
The Lady Vanishes (1938). Superb vintage Hitchcock! By that time Hitchcock had been making movies for 13 years, but most were relatively obscure; this one and the earlier and less successful The 39 Steps really put him on the map. A seemingly innocuous middle-aged woman on a train suddenly disappears and everyone denies that she ever existed.
Really old movies of this vintage are often more interesting for their historical value and authentic period settings than anything else, but this was as entertaining as any modern film and despite its age is still a suspenseful thriller. Its box office success and critical accolades attracted the attention of Hollywood for the first time. By next year Hitchcock had relocated to Hollywood and was making Rebecca (released in 1940) for the David O. Selznick studio.
Land of the Dead
Not recommended.
George Romero came back to zombies two decades later and this movie is boring as can be. Nothing to see here, even with Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo, both of whom just do their thing but have nothing to work with.
Nothing to see here at all.
I had no idea this even existed.
Not many know about one of my favorite early Hitchcock movies: Sabotage (1936), not to be confused with the much better known Saboteur. It’s pre-war England and someone is up to no good. I love seeing what going to a movie was like back then: oh! the smoking! And what other Hitchcock film includes a Disney cartoon - WTH!??! The final exchange of lines is so clever, I rewind it a couple of times just to make sure I heard right.
Rope (1948). Another great Hitchcock, though probably not as well known as many others. Two young men strangle a mutual friend, then in order to prove that they are superior beings who can coolly commit the perfect murder, stuff his body into a chest that becomes the buffet table for a party they host later that day.
The entire film is set in the living room of their apartment, with all the action centered on dialog, which gives the movie very much the feel of a one-act stage play. But this is Hitchcock, so it’s not lacking in depth and suspense, with some great camera work adding to the suspenseful ending. Maybe it’s just me, but something about the acting of the two principal characters, especially the Brandon character (John Dall) seemed off to me. But the big star here is James Stewart, who predictably put in a great performance as Rupert Cadell, one of their former teachers who is finely attuned to sensing when things are not quite right.
Interestingly, Hitchcock continued to make movies in black and white well into the early 50s, but this one was in colour. A wise choice, I think. Given the limited visual scope, colour helps to add realism to this tense psychological drama.
The high rating of the movie suggests it’s among his best, though personally I don’t agree. Still, it’s directed with Hitchcock’s consummate skill and, needless to say, highly recommended if the plot appeals to you. A less than top-notch Hitchcock is still about a thousand times better than the vast majority of movies.
It was interesting that Hitchcock chose to film this so that it would look like a single cut film, though back in the days of relatively short film spools that required a number of hidden breaks. That will certainly make it feel much more like a safe play, along with the single set.
As a fun anecdote, French composer Francois Poulenc was watching the film, heard his piano piece Perpetual Motion Nr. 1 being played and rushed out of the theatre to call his publisher. Hitchcock hadn’t got permission from or credited Poulenc for the use of the (under copyright) music. Lawyers became involved.
Oops.