Back in the DVD days I saw a lot of children’s animation direct-to-video that fit this mold, Iced with a white-haired heroine prominent on the cover.
I figured it was to catch grandma wanting to get a birthday or Christmas gift and being a bit vague about what movie they’d heard about.
I didn’t think it was a documentary, but I thought it was propaganda. What does that make me?
A moviegoer?
U-571 is indeed “just a war movie”, but the war was real and capturing the Enigma was a major pivotal event in the war. The film received a lot of criticism for turning history on its head and crediting Americans with something the British had accomplished. Complaints about the historical inaccuracy reached the British House of Commons and even the US president had to publicly acknowledge that it wasn’t historically accurate.
Argo is even worse because it’s billed as a “docudrama” or “historical drama”, leading the viewer to believe it’s at least substantially accurate, yet once again turns history on its head by glorifying Americans as heroes where in this case most of the credit was due to Canadian diplomats.
They were also big in RedBox. Children’s movies can also be vulnerable to the extent they are often based on fairytales, which are likely to be in the public domain. See, for example The True History of Puss 'N Boots (2009). It was not actually an Asylum production, but similar vein. Came out in 2009 (a couple years before Disney’s, actually, but years after the character had appeared in Shrek and even after Disney had announced the feature film).
And conveniently, though it was a French production, it just happened to come out with an English translation (featuring William Shatner!) in May of 2011, just in time to benefit from the marketing campaign for Disney’s pending release.
Speaking of films released to capture attention ahead of big-budget studio releases, someone named Ash Koosha announced an AI-generated film called Odysseus: The Fall.
What Disney release are you referring to? I don’t see anything that looks related to a Puss 'N Boots type character.
Sorry, I fell into the trap of “all animation is Disney.” I meant DreamWorks.
I was just realizing you might have made that mistake. Happens to us all, which shows how these low-production-value studios survive.
That one caught me out and I bought a copy. Watched it anyway once I realized the difference. Surprisingly it wasn’t too bad, all things considered.
Heh, heh, heh — nice!
Paprika. Anime about a machine that allows people to enter another person’s dream. The main Character is woman heading the team of researchers working on the device. She has an alternate personality as a different woman, Paprika, who exists in dream space and tries to help people with their problems. Dreams and reality begin to intermingle with surreal results when the machine is stolen. It’s very weird and surreal so if you don’t like that this isn’t for you. I do like surrealism and even I found this movie a little too much at times. That said, I liked it, though it’s not my favorite.
The description probably makes you think of Inception but other than the central concept the two movies have nothing in common.
Crime 101. It’s been compared to Michael Mann’s Heat.
Okay, here’s the thing. I know it’s based on a beloved stage play (La Cage aux Folles) but I have some issues with this movie. There were just too many why did they / would they do that moments. It simmers just a little bit under out and out farce so some of the reasoning of the characters is questionable … seems forced to fit the story.
For example, we watch all the dilemma that the kid’s dads are having around having to deal with a conservative in-law, dredging up all sorts of pathos and deep conversations mixed in with the semi-farce. We watch Nathan Lane’s character in drag, with like a five o’clock shadow - which would never fool anyone in a million years - charm the in-laws and in the end, there is no big event that hastens the reveal. Christine Baranski just shows up and flaps her gums and the kid just steps up and admits the whole scheme and then … nobody gives a shit, so why did they have to go with the whole charade (the whole rest of the movie, basically) in the first place?
Then, we have an arch-conservative who is petrified of being seen coming out of an apartment that’s attached to a drag show, but he has no problem exiting the actual drag show … IN DRAG!
Too much suspension of disbelief for the lack of ultimate farce if you ask me.
Um, I thought that that bit was about his expecting to be able to get out of the show unrecognized by press or other figures, because unfamiliar feminine presentation?
What he was most scared of was being publicly associated with this “immoral” exhibition, because conservative politician.
This is your entry for the annual Understatement of the Year contest? 
Agreed, and I like surreal in moderate doses.
I saw that when it was in theaters and enjoyed it.
The Isolate Thief - Sean Bean he dies as an 1865 outlaw gang leader in the Pacific Northwest trying to find his gold.
Nice little movie, maybe 6.5? Mackenzie Foy is the main character, does good work playing a competent but somewhat naive girl facing off against the gang.
Being a lawyer ruined that movie for me. There’s a scene where…
…they let the baddies get away because the baddies realize they’re being surveilled. The cops are like “If we bust them now, before they complete the crime, we’ll only be able to get them on trespassing” or something like that.
And I’m like, WHAT!? You have them dead to rights on conspiracy and attempt to commit the underlying offense! They’d be liable for substantial time on just the attempt alone, and basically the same liability as the underlying offense, had it been completed, for the conspiracy. A bunch of dudes being caught in the middle of a crime that on its face must have required substantial planning and prior preparation by all involved is pretty damning evidence of conspiracy to commit the crime.
The Friend, home blu ray.
We’d seen it in the theater, but my wife is reading the new book by Sigrid Nunez (author of the book The Friend), so she wanted to see the film again.
I like the movie, but it’s such a NYC writing cult of personality story. Bill Murray’s character reminds me exactly of Peter Coyote’s character in a Law and Order Criminal Intent, except Bill didn’t murder anyone. He writes just as pompously, though.
It’s also like a sideways Bechdel-test movie. Lots of women, but all talking about the same guy. It’s like Murray’s character was the sun all these people’s lives orbited, closely.
However the main character’s story was a fine journey, and of course, I loved the dog. The dog does not die. At least, not at the end of the film.
Speaking of Law and Order, there were three “repeat offenders” from L&O in the movie. NYC casting, eh?