rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

NO ESCAPE (1994)
7.5/10



The Savoy Pictures library has long been locked up, presumably due to distribution issues, yet in the last year the likes of “Last of the Dogmen” and now “No Escape” have trickled out onto Blu-Ray here in the U.S.

A solid, quasi sci-fi thriller released to uneventful box-office in the spring of '94, “No Escape” sends prisoner Ray Liotta to a secluded, top-secret prison island where he joins up with a slightly less-dangerous group of “inmates” including Lance Henriksen and Ernie Hudson while outright psycho Stuart Wilson stages his own “Lord of the Flies” on the isle's other half. Eventually they all meet up and duke it out in this entertaining, highly watchable Gale Ann Hurd production, directed by Martin Campbell and shot by Phil Meheux – shortly before much of this team went off to shoot Pierce Brosnan's debut as James Bond, “Goldeneye.” Michael Gaylin and Joel Gross scripted with Kevin Dillon, Michael Lerner and Kevin J. O'Connor also in the supporting cast.

Unearthed's Blu-Ray hails from what looks like a dusty old HD master (2.35) with somewhat limp colors and brightness levels (the German release from Turbine is superior). The audio options include a somewhat subdued 5.1 DTS MA track and even weaker 2.0 option, with extras including “remotely conducted” audio interviews with Hurd, Campbell, and Gross, plus an archival Making Of, promo gallery and alternate intro under its international title “Escape From Absolom.”

[Monterey Jack]

-Glass Onion (2022): 10/10



Even more entertaining than Knives Out, the second screen adventure of Daniel Craig's courtly, Southern-fried master detective Benoit Blanc (thankfully unspooling in theaters for two weeks before becoming imprisoned on Netflix forever and ever) is one of the year's funniest, most satisfyingly twisty comic murder mysteries. Summoned to the lavish island getaway of an obnoxiously self-satisfied tech mogul (Edward Norton) for a period 2020 dawn-of-Corona getaway themed around...a murder mystery game, replete with an abundance of colorful guests/suspects (including Kathryn Hahn, Dave Bautista, Kate Hudson and sundry others). but this game turns out to be foh realz, and detective Blanc (going out of his mind with boredom due to the shutdowns) is tasked with bringing a real killer to justice as the array of would-be victims fret and point accusatory fingers.

Writer/director Rian Johnson got an absurdly luxe deal when he moved his nascent Knives Out franchise to Netflix ($400 million for this and a to-be-shot third entry ), but you can't say the money's not up there on the screen, with Norton's antiseptically baroque island villa featuring top-notch production design from Tim Burton veteran Rick Heinrichs (and set to a spangly, string quartet-and-harpsichord score by the director's brother, Nathan, that's one of the year's best). It's a great chessboard for the mind games to follow, and Craig is clearly relishing a role far removed from the woeful, dyspeptic scowl he affixed to his mug almost constantly by the time his stint as Agent 007 came to an end. He's a consistent delight, sputtering out a series of wry wisecracks as he delves into the backstories of his various suspects. It's simultaneously legitimately engrossing and a marvelous quasi-spoof of whodunnits that builds to a terrific climax featuring one of the most satisfying screen comeuppances in recent memory


If you have access to see this in a theater, go...my nearly sold-out audience was laughing and chuckling throughout, and this is the kind of movie that deserves to be seen with an appreciative crowd. It's a shame that Netflix is treating this theatrical rollout as a token throwaway (only 600 some-odd screens for two weeks), as this would have made HUGE money had it been properly advertised and been given a 3,000-screen rollout. Hopefully, when the numbers come in on the screen averages on this, it'll convince Netflix to give the third Benoit Blanc mystery the full theatrical push it'll likely deserve. This has turned into a wonderfully droll, witty franchise for adults, and that's a very rare thing in this day and age.

[Monterey Jack]

The Netflix business strategy...

[AndyDursin]

And yet this horrid looking Disney cartoon is bombing with not only one of the lowest audience scores for a Disney animated feature but also one of the worst grosses EVER for that genre. It would have been unheard of 5 years ago for any Disney toon to perform like that, even the crappy ones could be counted on to meet a certain number. But it's another sign that things aren't the same and probably never will be.

I think your expectations about the industry and where it's going are set too high. You also live near a major city where there's an audience that's going to support something that isn't some 4000 screen franchise movie. But the reality right now is there is next to no support on a wide, national scale for nearly any movie that isn't coming out of the regurgitated IP franchise stable. Knives Out made a lot of cash a few years ago...but the market isn't the same now and Netflix paid a lot (too much probably) to try and secure the kinds of viewers who will support that kind of movie at home. You say its a bad strategy but when more audiences are staying home what are they supposed to do? So they release this thing on 3000 screens...how much do you think it would really pull in? Doubtful it would do $100 million now in this market.

The sad reality is the movie Thanksgivings of years gone past are done and they aren't coming back. Not even Black Panther 2 is setting the world on fire. And Avatar 2 is hilariously going to have to become virtually the highest grossing movie in history just to break even. Cameron wouldn't even get that sequel funded now and he knows it.

[AndyDursin]

The other thing is most of the product for adults is woeful looking "specialty fare", that the large audience is not invested in seeing. Add in the current state of the economy and ticket prices, and what's been out there isn't nearly compelling enough for people to spend their money on.

[Paul MacLean]

My whole life I loved "going to the movies". Going out to see a movie had a sense of occasion, it was often a chance to spend time with friends, it was a good date option -- it was something you and a date could do together, but saved you from "awkward silences" -- and gave you something talk about afterward. Until Blu-ray / HD streaming, theatrical projection offered better quality than you could get at home.

But most importantly, the movies used to be better!

Other than Top Gun, there hasn't been anything new in several years that has interested me enough to go to the movies. I wish there was, but between the lame pictures, and the often-unacceptable projection issues (as in my recent Poltergeist experience), I'd rather stay home.

[AndyDursin]

DON'T WORRY DARLING
5/10

Lots of pre-release publicity surrounding on-set feuds between director Olivia Wilde and star Florence Pugh – to say nothing of departed original star Shia LaBeouf – marred Wilde's second directorial foray “Don't Worry Darling.” This “puzzle box” of a movie offers Pugh as a repressed housewife in a seemingly '50s suburban community which, naturally, isn't entirely what it's cracked to be; meanwhile, Harry Styles plays Pugh's husband (not well, either) with Chris Pine an enigmatic figure behind it all.

Wilde has good directorial sense visually but Katie Silberman's languid script is a flat line that never comes alive, managing to be predictable in terms of tone and emotion, biding the time before it eventually throws the twist we've all been waiting for back at the viewer. Needless to say that "revelation" isn't enough to save the picture, while pop star Styles coughs up several unintentionally funny scenes in a performance that shows he should stick to his day job.

Warner's attractive 4K UHD (2.39) is nicely graded with HDR10 and boasts Dolby Atmos sound, the Blu-Ray and a Digital HD copy. A featurette and deleted scene are all the extras you get, but you can easily read all about the movie's problematic shoot elsewhere.

[Paul MacLean]

The Fabelmans (7/10)

Steven Spielberg was my hero as an adolescent. His early movies were iconic to those of us born in the 1960s and 70s. He gave us fantastic (and sometimes frightening) adventures, often setting them in mundane, suburban settings -- which really resonated with us "small town kids". On top of that, despite the fact these were "escapist flicks", they often had very believable, three-dimensional characters.

Many critics (and most film professors) hated Spielberg back then, dismissing his work as derivative, shallow, "sentimentalist drivel", etc. To them he was ruining cinema. But we knew better. Jaws, Close Encouters, Raiders and E.T. had more to say about our lives and dreams than "serious movies" like The Deer Hunter, Reds or Terms of Endearment.

Thus, Spielberg's latest effort, the film that tells the story of how be became "Spielberg", ought to have been as touching, heart-wrenching and inspiring as those early movies we loved so much. Unfortunately, while The Fabelmans is certainly watchable, essentially sincere and on certain levels likeable -- it just isn't that great. On the surface it is well-written, well-directed, the performances are terrific, but it is also contrived and sometimes stilted -- and not very emotionally resonant.

Considering The Fabelmans is in part the true story of a family's disintegration, it should feel a lot more visceral than it is. To be honest, the erosion of Roy and Ronnie's marriage in Close Encounters, and the post-divorce hardships of Elliot's family in E.T. came-off as far-more believable (and unsettling) than anything in this movie.

I hate to say it, but the film also looks cheap. For instance, the Fabelman's New Jersey neighborhood is just an old studio backlot set (used in countless sitcoms), and the sprinkling of fake snow does not hide the palm fronds visible behind their house. A director of Spielberg's stature couldn't bother to go on location (or at least mask out the fronds with CGI)? There are technical errors -- "Sam" (i.e. Steven) is shown making his 8mm movies, but when he projects them, they are obviously not shot on 8mm (which has very low resolution, and a lower frame rate than professional gauges). Maybe this is nit-picky, but Spielberg knows this -- and he decided to be inaccurate anyway.

None is this is helped by Janusz Kaminski's typically gauzy, grainy cinematography, which gives the film a slightly unreal, fanciful quality -- and thus compromises the believability of what's on screen. Such is Kaminski's love of film grain, there was even one scene which I initially assumed was old stock footage (until one of the characters moved into frame).

John Williams' reward for his 50-year collaboration with Spielberg (having uplifted so many of the director's previous films) is to be barred from making a significant musical contribution. There is barely any original score in this movie, and in the moments when Spielberg does allow the music to play foreground role, he instead uses "needle drops".

The Fabelmans is not a terrible film. And there were things I liked -- particularly background details (like the glimpse of The Blue Max and El Cid soundtrack LPs on the shelf in Sam's bedroom), but considering this is (in Spielberg's own words) "my most personal film", I found it disappointing. It lacks the inspiring emotional resonance which was the hallmark of Speilberg's earlier pictures, and is (by his standards) surprisingly clunky and prosaic.

[AndyDursin]

VIOLENT NIGHT
3/10

The bizarre world of theatrical exhibition in 2022 typically means new releases either fall into hugely expensive, corporate driven IP or low-budget efforts from major studios like VIOLENT NIGHT -- an insipid waste of time for "Stranger Things" David Harbour, playing a drunken Santa who has to save an estranged, wealthy family from thieves led by John Leguizamo, taking a much needed break from Papa Johns commercials.

The concept of this movie says "DIE HARD meets HOME ALONE!" but there's really nothing at all equating this piece of trash from either of those movies. In order for any movie, even like VIOLENT NIGHT, to function, you have to BELIEVE in the concept, no matter how outlandish it is, enough that you invest in the material. Alas, director Tommy Wirkola (of the equally dumb but comparatively more watchable "Hansel & Gretel" movie with Jeremy Renner) never gets this picture beyond the stage of resembling a 2-minute SNL digital sketch. "Santa takes a leak!" and "Santa vomits!" -- and...what else do you have? Nothing really. The entire movie plays like some young executive's "high concept" where they didn't bother to hire anyone to cultivate an actual story or screenplay worth even a few minutes of the audience's time (much less a feature). Ultimately, the entire film is phony -- the bloody and badly choreographed action scenes work hand in hand with a cheap digital look to create a stillborn project accentuated by a witless, terrible screenplay. At what point did anyone in this movie think it was going to work?

Even the score (ooo, Christmas Carols with a flourish of Michael Kamen! how fresh!) pays predictable homage to Christmases past -- and movies so, so much better than this one.

[Eric Paddon]

The Nativity Story (2006) 5 of 10
-I'd forgotten I'd picked this up with free credits a few months ago and decided to watch it while the season was still appropriate. This film got made in the wake of the success of "Passion Of The Christ" but I remember it got poor reviews even from the faithful. Watching it for the first time I can see why. The film is simply a pedestrian telling of the story that doesn't offer us anything new or innovative. Indeed, there are deliberate echoes of "Jesus Of Nazareth" in that the actress who plays Mary looks much like Olivia Hussey did in that production, and other scenes are clearly lifted from Zeffirelli as well (Mary sees Elizabeth; Joseph has a vision of people wanting to stone Mary). The low-key "naturalistic" style of acting doesn't help either and a big mistake in the score is hearing traditional Christmas Carol melodies interpolated at times that totally jar with the visuals (especially when "Silent Night" is inappropriately used for the climactic visual of the Holy Family arriving in Egypt!). I was reminded of Miklos Rozsa's adamant refusal not to interpolate "Adeste Fidelis" into the Natvity scene of "Ben-Hur."

I can certainly give it some points for sincerity, but a big screen telling of this deserved to be done with the same kind of innovative approach Gibson gave for the Crucifixion. Overall, nothing stellar.

[Monterey Jack]

And to commemorate another movie year coming to an end...

[Paul MacLean]

\I can certainly give it some points for sincerity, but a big screen telling of this deserved to be done with the same kind of innovative approach Gibson gave for the Crucifixion. Overall, nothing stellar.

Yeah, I was pretty-much "eh", about this movie too.

And I don't think the announcement (soon after the film's release) that 16-year-old lead Keisha Castle-Hughes was pregnant by her boyfriend, did much to enhance the film's reputation!

[mkaroly]

\I can certainly give it some points for sincerity, but a big screen telling of this deserved to be done with the same kind of innovative approach Gibson gave for the Crucifixion. Overall, nothing stellar.

Yeah, I was pretty-much "eh", about this movie too.

And I don't think the announcement (soon after the film's release) that 16-year-old lead Keisha Castle-Hughes was pregnant by her boyfriend, did much to enhance the film's reputation!

Seriously??? Lol...wow....

[Paul MacLean]

Seriously??? Lol...wow....

Yup!

https://theblemish.com/2006/10/keisha-c ... -pregnant/

[Monterey Jack]

-Babylon (2022): 2/10



The worst film from a truly talented director this year? Baffling, indulgent, grotesquely scatalogical (you witness an elephant explosively evacuate its bowels on top of a dude's head within the first few minutes, and that's just the tip of the iceberg ), rambles on for three hours and nine minutes(!), and has absolutely nothing to say about the changeover from silent film to "The Talkies" that wasn't already stated far more eloquently by SIngin' In The Rain or The Artist (both of which were nearly half as long as this). Plus, why does Tobey Maguire show up towards the end acting like Emo Peter Parker and made up to look like a sallow Emperor Palpatine? From a filmmaker whose last three movies I absolutely loved, it's the most crushing disappointment of the year. And for a movie that boasts both Margot Robbie and Samara Weaving in the cast, they couldn't have cast them as sisters, or at least have had them sharing the frame at the same time? And now THIS is the last movie I saw on the big screen in 2022. Happy New Year...!