rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

Do you still get the links to Twitter and Youtube videos, etc. that are embedded?

My guess is it's your pop up software, even though it's not a pop up. Might just throw any Amazon link, ad, pop up, etc. into the same classification.

I went to a clean browser I don't use, and didn't log in, and the Amazon links show up fine.

[Monterey Jack]

Do you still get the links to Twitter and Youtube videos, etc. that are embedded?

Yes. I've seen Amazon links you've provided before.

[AndyDursin]

GREENLAND
6/10

It's the end of the world -- again -- when a comet breaks into fragments, sending society into a mass panic and family man Gerard Butler into Action Hero Mode (TM) in order to save his son and estranged wife (Morena Baccarin).

This is a fairly modest and, accordingly, moderately effective apocalyptic tale from director Ric Roman Waugh, with the accent less on spectacle than characters. The problem is the lack of surprises in a predictable screenplay that offers little we haven't seen before.

After the last year we've lived through and having a 1st grader, I also didn't particularly "enjoy" watching this movie. We've had our own nightmare to endure (that's still not over), and somehow watching this wasn't so much of an escape as a disturbing reinforcement that at least leaves us with the thought, well, maybe we couldve been okay if Butler had been fighting COVID instead of comets.

[Paul MacLean]

Joker (2/10)

I finally got around to seeing this much-lauded "modern classic". Didn't work for me I'm afraid.

This film is wrong-headed all the way down to its conception. Obviously it is the "origin story" of a comic book character, but the picture is also trying to be one of those edgy, nihilistic "urban dramas" from the 1970s -- and the two genres just don't work together.

This is the Joker -- you know, they guy who dresses like a clown and is the arch nemesis of Batman, the crimefighter who runs around in tights and a cape, and whose vigilante efforts are actually welcomed by the police. Batman is pure fantasy. Uprooting the villain from such a fanciful comic book franchise and placing him in a gritty "cautionary tale" is to say the least pretentious. Beyond that, the screenplay for Joker is nothing more than a mashup of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy (the film even includes Robert DeNiro) with a pinch of Network and Harry Brown thrown-in.

Since this is a Batman spinoff it also raises questions. When things started brewing between Joaquin Phoenix and Zazie Beetz, I half-wondered "Is she going to turn-out to be Catwoman"? Contrived moments litter the movie, such a Phoenix's unintentionally funny "interpretive dances", and the scene where the young Bruce Wayne slides down the pole of a jungle gym. Ooooo! A reference to his future crime-fighting exploits!

The film is also confusing at times. We learn toward the end of the film that Phoenix's relationship with Beetz was all in his head. Fine, but that raises more questions, like "What else is in his head?" Owing to this, I assumed the highly unlikely invitation to appear on DeNiro's talk show was also a figment of his imagination.

The ending makes no sense. Why is he in an institution if the rioting clowns freed him from the police car? Was the whole previous two hours all in his head? Or are we to assume he will escape one day and become "The Joker"?

I also take exception to the fundamental message of the film, which is that the Joker is a "victim", and that "uncaring people" are the reason he (and other lawbreakers) turn to crime. Never once is the character held accountable for the choices he makes. No, "society is to blame" for the carnage he unleashes (that and cruel rich people like the Wayne family).

The end credits are also a slap in the face to Bob Kane, as they proclaim "Based on Characters from DC" (with no mention of Kane). Hildur Guðnadóttir's score is nothing more than drab, themeless string writing, which sounds like etudes written for children who've just taken-up the cello (this score actually won an Oscar?). The "ironic" use of songs like "Make Someone Happy" and "Send in the Clowns" also gets tedious.

I do give the film some points for Joaquin Phoenix's performance, whose edgy decent into madness is extremely well-acted. The photography and art direction are also very striking (if utterly dreary). It's also interesting how the film predicted the urban riots which marred society a year after its release.

But ultimately, Joker is overlong, unrelentingly unpleasant and ultimately drowns in its own self-importance. Such is its overreaching attempt to get away from the fantasy tone of the comics that if you were to remove all the references to Batman (which are superficial to begin with) it is just a story of a misfit who goes insane. In fact I would have had more respect for the movie had they just made the same film and skipped the references to Batman -- but none of the comic geeks would have come to see it of course.

[BobaMike]

The Thin Man 8/10

Watched the recent Warner Archive blu-ray of The Thin Man last night. It's amazing how modern and ground-breaking this movie is- especially when you consider it was made in 1934!
A very twisty (at times confusing) murder mystery, with sparkling, boozy dialogue, the stars, Myrna Loy and William Powell are the perfect movie married couple. They really do seem to enjoy each others company, in a way that many on screen pairs do not.

The amount of drinking is pretty amazing, but I guess coming right after prohibition ended, everyone was happy to able to have alcohol!

I do find the plot and suspects hard to follow a bit (the big dinner table reveal always leaves me a bit puzzled), but it's such good fun, who cares?

I know they wanted to remake this a few years ago with Johnny Depp (not happening now). I can't imagine any actors/actresses today that could pull this off.

[Monterey Jack]

The amount of drinking is pretty amazing, but I guess coming right after prohibition ended, everyone was happy to able to have alcohol!

Expect post-Covid socializing to be particularly wanton and heedless and out-of-control.

Anyways...

-Antebellum (2020): 1/10

It's like Jordan Peele and M. Night Shyamalan had a really ugly baby. THE dumbest (and most illogical) twist I've seen since Serenity. It's a well-shot movie, but once the Big Twist is revealed, it's impossible to buy into its "satirical" BLM-era messaging. Just awful.

[Paul MacLean]

Tolkien (6.5/10)

I give this film points for its sincerity, and it is not without some genuinely touching moments (particularly in the scenes between Tolkien and his future wife Edith). But mostly it is very unremarkable, and feels like a mash-up of Dead Poets Society and 1917. The film opens with the author serving in the trenches during World War I, with much of the drama unfolding in extended flashbacks to Tokien's youth, and the small group of maverick artists and poets of which he was a member, all of them wanting to shake-off the stifling expectations of their parents.

The performances are all first-rate, but the production value is low (like a TV movie). The film is also limited in the coverage of the protagonist's life -- Most of Tolkien's adulthood, his important friendship with C.S. Lewis and the other "Inklings" (a clique of Oxford professors who used to meet regularly in the pub) is never shown. The movie actually ends with Tolkien sitting down to begin work on "The Hobbit" -- his later, decades-long struggle to write the more significant "Lord of the Rings" is not depicted, nor is any of his childhood in South Africa.

Thomas Newman's score is absolutely abysmal, consisting of vague, long, sustained chords that amount to little more than white sound, with occasional "Enya"-style Celtic / New age synth work -- the perfect musical accompaniment to a film set in the 1910s and 20s. The score brings nothing to the movie, and actually compromises it some of the time.

Apart from the fact Tolkien is a very incomplete portrait of the main character, it is also just unceremonious, and also boring some of the time. It's a shame because Tolkien's life story is a very interesting one, but this movie is a missed opportunity.

[Eric Paddon]

Tolkien (6.5/10)

The film is also limited in the coverage of the protagonist's life -- Most of Tolkien's adulthood, his important friendship with C.S. Lewis and the other "Inklings" (a clique of Oxford professors who used to meet regularly in the pub) is never shown.

I'm not surprised. That would mean being forced to confront the common bond of *CHRISTIANITY* they also shared. Much in the same way that the big-screen version of "Shadowlands" totally removed Christianity from the story of C.S. Lewis and Joy Davidman.

[AndyDursin]

THE RUSSIA HOUSE
5/10

A movie that was clearly more invested in its touting of Russian location shooting than telling a coherent story, this 1990 Pathe adaptation of John LeCarre's novel works best as a travelogue set to Jerry Goldsmith's beautiful score.

As a narrative, the film is basically a total misfire, starting right off the bat where director Fred Schepisi (seemingly in over his head with this material) stages an opening sequence, follows with a flashback, then engages in another flashback, bringing the viewer haphazardly up to "the present". Some 15 minutes in, I had the same feeling I did when I sat through the movie back in high school -- what the hell is happening? Haven't I seen this scene already? Who in the world thought this was a good way to open a complex, convoluted spy drama? What was the editor thinking?

It's always fun to watch Sean Connery at work, but truth be told, Connery is miscast here as a lazy book publisher "who lets people down", and gets swept into the espionage game and a relationship with a currier (Michelle Pfeiffer, pretty in a one-dimensional role) who acts as the go-between for a Russian physicist (Klaus Maria Brandeur, in the "Never Say Never Again" reunion nobody asked for) who wants the world to know the USSR's military assets aren't what they're cracked up to be. Connery isn't "bad" by any means, but he's certainly not the character. He's simply Connery here -- there's no sense you are watching a loser who can't get the job done suddenly become an effective confidence player, leveraging conflicting international interests on the part of MI6 and the CIA.

On that score, there are bad performances to go around. Roy Scheider -- one of my favorites -- is unintentionally hilarious as a profane CIA op, rolling his eyes and offering so many sarcastic quips you'd think he was doing stand-up (was it Scheider or writer Tom Stoppard's idea to have the Americans use an f-bomb every other word?). None of these scenes feel authentic or real -- and no performance, be it from "The Americans" or the Brits (James Fox and a miscast Ken Russell!), comes off as convincing.

Where does that leave us? The movie looks great. Ian Baker's cinematography captures not just Moscow but Lisbon and a host of international locations that are fascinating to look at. There's a tremendous amount of dialogue looping due to that location work -- which doesn't help matters -- but Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of his all-time best, giving the movie an emotional depth and beauty the drama itself never achieves. (It's shocking, though, to think how unwatchable this film would've been without Goldsmith's score -- and unsurprising Schepisi closes the movie with an end-credit montage of location shots and Jerry's theme, augmented with Branford Marsalis' lyrical saxophone riffing).

THE RUSSIA HOUSE may be an empty vessel, but it has some interesting elements that make it a curiously compelling view -- provided the viewer approaches it from the proper perspective.

[Paul MacLean]

There's a tremendous amount of dialogue looping due to that location work -- which doesn't help matters -- but Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of his all-time best, giving the movie an emotional depth and beauty the drama itself never achieves. (It's shocking, though, to think how unwatchable this film would've been without Goldsmith's score).

The scenes filmed in Russian locations employed a lot of steadycam and minimal lighting -- suggesting to me they were shot with a tiny crew (likely due to astringent Soviet regulations). As such, I'd guess they did either not have a sound recordist on set (necessitating post-production looping) or perhaps just recorded crude audio (for use as a sync reference for later dubbing).

Agreed on Goldsmith's score, which is among his most lyrical, and a striking change of pace for the composer -- particularly coming on the heels of Total Recall!

[BobaMike]

Tom & Jerry 6/10

It was a rainy day, so my son asked if there was a movie out. Slim pickings at the Alamo right now, so we saw Tom & Jerry. I wasn't really looking forward to it, as even as a kid I never really enjoyed the Tom & Jerry cartoons (I'd much rather see a good Road Runner cartoon Tex Avery Droopy cartoon if I want slapstick violence with animals)...but I am a sucker for anything where they combine live action with animation (Roger Rabbit being the ultimate example, but I do enjoy the likes of Mary Poppins Returns for the same reason). It's a shame that 30+ years later, the animation in Roger Rabbit is still better done and has more believable interactions with the live action. Seriously, Roger Rabbit is incredible.

Tom and Jerry has no star power (Chloe Grace Moretz, Jonathan Pena and Colin Jost are not exactly big draws). The animation is okay- it's CG, but done in a flat, hand drawn lookalike style. There was some nice squash and stretch, which is not common in CG. I enjoyed the 2 cameos by Droopy dog. Tom & Jerry don't speak, which is great. If you saw the 1992 version where they speak, it's terrible.

The biggest problem is the film focuses on the humans too much- do kids really care if Colin Jost can save his wedding ceremony? or if Chloe can land a real job? No- they want to see cartoon animals chase and smash things (which happens, but not very memorably (save for one scene where the duo destroys a hotel room). Instead, they give Tom a subplot where he wants to become a musician, and Jerry is mostly a thief who causes problems for everyone in the film. Has Jerry ever really been the villain of the pair? He came across as the unlikable one here.

I did like that every animal in the movie was a cartoon, and that it was just accepted.

I could have done with all the urban rap playing constantly in the film. If ever a movie called out for an old fashioned Carl Stalling/Scott Bradley score, this was it. At least the 1992 version had a mediocre Henry Mancini score. This one is by Christopher Lennertz, who I usually like- his Medal of Honor and Lost in Space scores are top-notch stuff. This one barely has any time to shine, as every other scene is an out of place song.

My son liked the movie, but I doubt we'll ever watch it again.

[Monterey Jack]

-Breakdown (1997): 9/10



Re-visiting Jonathan Mostow's gripping 1997 thriller again on the super new Via Vision Blu-Ray (which is easily one of the best Paramount catalogue transfers they've yet released, full of crisp detail and bold colors) reminded me of how much filmmaking has changed in the last 25 years, especially when it comes to the type of lean, smart, efficient (93 minutes) R-rated thrillers aimed at adults that have become virtually extinct in the era of multiplex blockbuster bloat. It's a simple plot (one, as an appreciation by an Aussie film critic on the new disc points out, cribs a lot from previous thrillers like Duel and the original Dutch version of The Vanishing), yet as staged by Mostow and acted by Kurt Russell (all wounded, slightly soft yuppie outrage) and the late, great J.T. Walsh (deceptively jovial and pleasant but under-the-surface, dead-eyed calculating), it's a movie that tightens with merciless precision as Russell -- in his fruitless and frustrating search for missing wife Kathleen Quinlan -- escalates his performance from mild worry to outright fear to resourceful vengeance as he pits his wits against Walsh and his cadre of ruthless criminal carjackers and murderers (Jack Noseworthy, M.C. Gainey).

While Breakdown is obviously assembled from spare parts (other influences include Hitchcock's great The Lady Vanishes and the Aussie quasi-slasher Road Games), it's expertly put together, with an ace production team including photography by Douglas Milsome and an efficient score by Basil Poledouris only slightly tainted by the transition from his intended, large orchestral forces to a smaller, more intimate collection of airy synth tones and clattering percussion (the OOP LaLaLand Records release featuring both scores plus a bevy of alternates is an unusually fascinating dissection of the direction traditional film music would be heading after the year 2000). Still, even with the revisions and improvisations by Poledouris and synthesist Eric Colvin (interviewed on the disc), it works perfectly fine in the movie, juicing up the tension and mystery which lead to a slam-bang climax with Russell and Walsh engaging in a metal-crunching freeway showdown worthy of a Mad Max movie. I remember Roger Ebert carping about the film's very ending, where Quinlan delivers a grimly satisfying coup de gras, as being unnecessary, but I can't imagine anyone, put through that experience, not making the same spur-of-the-moment decision. It's a great "Eff you" punctuation mark to one of the superior thrillers of the 90s, and I'm thrilled its finally been given its proper due on this excellent new Blu, which blows away the crummy, ancient, non-anamorphic DVD we've been stuck with for almost a quarter-century.

It's a crying shame that Mostow didn't have a bigger career after this. U-571 was a terse and effective submarine thriller, and he did an admirable job stepping into Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines (a film that lacks the thematic richness of James Cameron's preceding two movies, yet is an extremely well-put-together and satisfying action flick with a surprisingly dark, resonant ending), yet since then he's only done the dull Bruce Willis sci-fi actioner Surrogates and a forgettable direct-to-video actioner The Hunter's Prayer with Sam Worthington. He deserved a longer run as a crafter of smart, tense B-thrillers, and it's indicative of what's wrong with a Hollywood that would rather risk a $300 million investment on a movie hoping for that billion+ worldwide payout (which, in the post-Covid era, might not ever come back at full pre-Pandemic strength) rather than $36 million on a movie that becomes a surprise sleeper hit and grossed over $50 million (with plenty of replay value in the aftermarket of VHS/DVD and cable showings).

[jkholm]

I just watched Breakdown on Paramount + a week or so ago and agree it is a terrific thriller. You gotta love the vehicular mayhem at the end. And coincidentally I had rewatched U-571 not that long ago and also coincidentally have been watching The Last Ship with my son and Mostow directed the pilot episode of that series.

[AndyDursin]

Mostow's career trajectory is such that you wonder if there wasn't an off-screen reason his career stalled out. Whatever that was.

[AndyDursin]

ROSEBUD
3/10

Looming large among the annals of forgotten '70s flops is Otto Preminger's misfired thriller “Rosebud,” which offers a seemingly can't miss premise: reporter/CIA op Peter O'Toole is tasked with rescuing five young girls (Isabelle Huppert and Kim Cattrall among them) kidnapped aboard a millionaire's yacht by the Palestinian Liberation Army. Yet despite the potential for suspense, widescreen lensing and Richard Attenborough as a terrorist, “Rosebud” sits there lifelessly for its two hours, failing to deliver much in the way of excitement, all the way down to its rote musical score (what little there is of it) by Laurent Petitgirard. Even O'Toole looks like he'd rather be stationed by the pool as the movie aimlessly drifts through its plot with so little pizzazz you wonder if everyone was exhausted from off-camera day trips around its Corsican shooting locales. Dialogue, meanwhile, is often awkwardly delivered – the movie's last sequence alone probably offers some of the worst performances of O'Toole and Attenborough's respective careers.

Still the kind of turkey interested viewers may want to check out for its obscurity alone, “Rosebud” debuts on Blu-Ray in a solid 2K master (2.35) from MGM and muffled audio that's entirely a product of its location work (ADR doesn't seem to have been a big interest for Preminger with this movie). The trailer – which shows you really all you need to see – and a commentary from filmmaker Daniel Kremer comprise the extras.