rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD
5/10

Taylor Sheridan of Sicario and Yellowstone fame directed and co-wrote this adaptation of a bestselling book, but what results on-screen is a weirdly perfunctory exercise in action filmmaking. Truth be told I typically find Angelina Jolie to be something of a cipher on-screen, and that's the case again here as she plays a fire ranger who stumbles upon -- and subsequently tries to help -- a boy being pursued by a couple of killers who've just offed his dad (Jake Weber).

There are decent special effects of forest fires raging opposite the cat-and-mouse game of the assassins (one played by Nicolas Hoult) trying to kill the kid, but at only 90 minutes sans credits there's really no time for Sheridan to develop a chemistry between the boy and Jolie, who's stiff and unconvincing, not to mention assorted other players that make little impression.

This one -- like any "non tentpole" cinematic entity -- died at the COVID-afflicted box-office but is also available on HBO Max, which seems to be a better home for a limp picture that's competently crafted but completely forgettable.

[Monterey Jack]

-Cruella (2021): 8/10



The first of these modernized Disney live-action remakes/prequels I’ve authentically liked since The Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon. It’s all on the shoulders of Emma Stone, who’s flat-out fantastic in the title role, wonderfully arch and haughty with genuine sympathy underneath, and she’s supported by a movie that actually looks like A MOVIE, and not just a smeary greenscreen CGI fest. Director Craig Gilespie brings the same snazzy camerawork that enlivened his I, Tonya, and the movie hits the sweet spot of being just naughty enough to earn a lite PG-13 without tipping over into the overwrought grotesquerie of a typical Gore Verbinski film. Plus the movie looks good enough to eat, with superb 70s period London production design and those gorgeous costumes. The only flat notes are some too on-the-nose soundtrack choices and some leaden, connect-the-dots moments leading into the animated 101 Dalmatians (especially a mid-credits sequence I could have done without). Overall, though, this was a very pleasant surprise, and I wish Disney would take more creative chances with its animated back catalogue like this.

[AndyDursin]

135 minutes for THAT you've got to be kidding me.

[Monterey Jack]

135 minutes for THAT you've got to be kidding me.

Hey, the last nine minutes are credits.

Aside from overlength and some Zemeckis-level obviousness in the soundtrack needle-drops, I was quite pleased with this. It’s a damn sight more entertaining than something like The Lion King.

[BobaMike]

Started watching "Rim of the World" with my son on Netflix. Promoted as sort of a Goonies type adventure (4 kids are at a summer camp when aliens attack), my kid really wanted to see it. I had the soundtrack for a while, by Bear McCreary, and it's excellent. Goldsmith inspired, it's the best thing Bear's written.

We had to shut it off 15 minutes in. The amount of swearing, foul language, and inappropriate talk coming from what are 13 year olds was incredible. Talking about titties, motorboating, threesomes...not what I was expecting. Should have done more research on the film- so I guess it's my fault.

So we ended up watching Missing Link (7/10), a charming stop-motion animated movie from Laika, the studio who did Coraline and Paranoman. I've never seen such smooth stop motion- in fact, my son (who loves Nightmare Before Christmas), couldn't even tell it was stop-motion. The story involves a British explorer and a Bigfoot who wants to travel to meet the Yeti. The voices by Hugh Jackman and Zach Galifianakis.

The movie was a huge flop, but I'm not sure why. It was pretty funny, and had some inventive action sequences (one on a tossing ocean liner especially).
If I had one thing to criticize, it would be Carter Burwell's score...it added nothing. This movie called out for some big themes and emotional support, not something Burwell has ever really done imho.

[AndyDursin]

We had to shut it off 15 minutes in. The amount of swearing, foul language, and inappropriate talk coming from what are 13 year olds was incredible. Talking about titties, motorboating, threesomes...not what I was expecting. Should have done more research on the film- so I guess it's my fault.

Ugh, thanks for the tip.

Right now I have decided not to use the ESPN app after trailers for Shyamalan's OLD and the new PURGE showed up at 9am during Wimbeldon coverage. What the hell.

This movie called out for some big themes and emotional support, not something Burwell has ever really done imho.

Have long felt the same. He's been a composer who does best with striking a particular mood or being "quirky." The ability to dramatically underscore a film and provide emotional heft has never been his forte, and he usually struggles in those situations.

[mkaroly]

The only Burwell score I thought worked with the movie it was scored for was GODS AND MONSTERS.

[Eric Paddon]

Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941) 7 of 10

-I got this on the 50% Criterion discount at Barnes And Noble (first time I'd been in the store in many months!). I had never seen it before, and the only time I saw "Heaven Can Wait" was in the theater at age nine though I still have a vivid memory of it so the plot was familiar. This turned out to be a nice discovery on a number of levels. Robert Montgomery is an actor from the Golden Age who's work I'm largely unfamiliar with (though I know he was Elizabeth's father) and he does a good job in the role of the bewildered boxer Joe Pendleton who finds himself prematurely sent to Heaven fifty years too soon. Edward Everett Horton is hilarious as the incompetent "Messenger 7013" whose mistake is the cause of all the trouble (I honestly don't remember Buck Henry being that funny by contrast in the remake) while Claude Rains comes off as a warmer, more sympathetic Mr. Jordan than I remember James Mason being. Leading lady Evelyn Keyes was okay but didn't make a particularly strong impression.

-The film was a charming fantasy/screwball comedy that I think is the kind that works best in the B/W world of Hollywood's Golden Age in contrast to the late 70s world of "Heaven Can Wait" which is why I'm not inclined to revisit that film after 43 years (I think that film is going to hold the record for the film I go the longest without ever seeing again!).

Down To Earth (1947) 4 of 10

-Columbia actually made a sequel to this movie six years later as a vehicle for Rita Hayworth and in color. Horton returned as the bumbling messenger as did James Gleason as Max Corkle, who was Joe's fight manager in the original but who now for purposes of the plot has suddenly become a theatrical agent (he still keeps a picture of Montgomery on his desk) but Roland Culver takes over the part of Mr. Jordan from Claude Rains and he is nowhere near as effective (it's obvious he's trying to imitate Rains performance). The plot is a piece of contrived nonsense in which the goddess Terpsichore is angry about the brash, vulgar Broadway musical that star and producer Larry Parks is putting on about the Nine Muses of Olympus so she asks Mr. Jordan to let her come down to Earth to fix the musical and defend what she sees as her honor. This is all so we can see Hayworth show off her dancing skills (and perpetually dubbed singing voice) in a series of elaborate production numbers that honestly come off as second-rate compared to what MGM knew how to do better. Rita looks lovely but the film drags enormously with the endless production numbers of the "show within the film" (it's running time is longer than "Jordan"). Just as the original film was later remade in 1978, the creaky plot of this film (where the only laughs come from a repetition of the original film's humor, particularly when Gleason is involved) was basically remade for the disastrous camp musical "Xanadu".

-As a leading man, Larry Parks, who was a hot property for being the star of "The Jolson Story" only shows that even if the blacklist hadn't killed his career, he was never going to last in the business as an appealing leading man because he has very little screen charm and charisma.

The sequel is part of the recent budget Blu-Ray set of Rita Hayworth films which is why I took advantage of the chance to see it after getting "Jordan" at a bargain. It made for an interesting double feature and Rita shows why she was one of the great screen beauties of her time, but the film is second-rate on all levels.

[mkaroly]

ONE, TWO, THREE (1961). 9.5/10. Billy Wilder films are kind of hit and miss for me...films like KISS ME, STUPID, IRMA LA DOUCE, and AVANTI! are misses. But OTT is definitely a hit for me. I am a big fan of HIS GIRL FRIDAY (I have yet to see Wilder's adaptation of the same material in THE FRONT PAGE) - I love the frantic pace, the quick smart-ass dialogue, and watching professional actors/actresses perform at a high level. OTT pretty much has all of the above in it; James Cagney does overact at times, but what an amazing performance. Although he is the star of the show, Arlene Francis hits the ball out of the park as his wife...just as sharp tongued but with more heart than Cagney. She gets some of the best lines in the film! The rest of the cast is stellar - so many great characters in the film (including a Marilyn Monroe-esque secretary named Ingeborg). There are several long takes where actors had to hit marks and recite quite a bit of dialogue...this type of performing is a lost art. Horst Buchold (misspelled) is probably the only person in the film who I didn't care for much. His performance seemed a little less 'natural' than the rest of the cast's performances. Overall this is a gem of a film, a political comedy whose one-liners, references to pop culture and other movies, and overall zaniness is a welcome treat to revisit. Kino Lorber's Blu-Ray has a decent commentary track (thankfully he talks about many of the pop culture/movie references made in the film) and a couple of brief extras that aren't worth much.

[Eric Paddon]

Arlene Francis didn't do much film work because she was NY based and busy with stage work, a radio show and "What's My Line?" for 25 years. "One, Two, Three" is her best role in that medium.

Pamela Tiffin's second film as well. I need to revisit it soon since I do have the Blu-Ray but haven't watched it in that format yet.

[mkaroly]

Pamela Tiffin does an amazing job as well...totally believeable as a pampered Southern belle.

THE WAY OF THE DRAGON (1972). 8/10. Bruce Lee's directorial debut is worthy of a great deal of respect. He also wrote the screenplay, did the fight choreography, and co-produced the film with Raymond Chow. Lee plays a character named Tang Lung who is sent to Rome to help defend a relative's restaurant business from being taken over by a greedy businessman (played by Jon Benn). The film contains plot elements from THE BIG BOSS and FIST OF FURY, but unlike those films this one has more humor, most of which centers on Bruce Lee's "fish out of water" predicament. Lee looks very confident, relaxed, and in his element throughout the film. He was a very charasmatic actor whith a towering screen presence. What stands out most in this film are the fight sequences, not the least of which is his epic battle against Colt (Chuck Norris). Lee's fight choreography is much more 'realistic' than the choreography in previous films, and the climactic battle between Colt and Lung remains one of the great martial arts fights in cinema history (IMO). The tension is built up well; Lung has to adapt to his opponent's style, and the end of the fight is extremely moving as Lung honors his defeated opponent. No dialogue is spoken, but the facial expressions say everything that needs to be said. Very impressive and entertaining film that also boats the presence of the very beautiful Nora Miao. The Criterion commentary is not very good; it is a commentary track from a Shout Favtory release and sounds like it was lifted off a computer recording.

[AndyDursin]

WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT FEELING GOOD? (1968)
5/10

There is something so profoundly creepy about watching WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT FEELING GOOD? (94 mins., 1968) – so much that our current predicament of COVID-era, controversial masking policies and general public health measures had to have been one reason why this long-forgotten 1968 Universal comedy with George Peppard and Mary Tyler Moore was dusted off specially for Blu-Ray this month from Kino Lorber. In this George Seaton-directed farce, an epidemic hops off a boat, passed on by a toucan that rages through late '60s New York City, requiring the use of masks made readily available by a government that freely hands the cloth coverings out to one and all – except here, it's not a nasty variation on the common cold, but rather a virus that causes those who get “sick” to free themselves and become uninhibited and blissful.

It's a situation the mayor's office can't handle, since sales tax begins to plummet – much to the chagrin of previously unhappy Big Apple beatniks Peppard and Moore, who lose their drab counter-culture personas and quickly embrace their newfound good spirits. In fact, they decide to intentionally spread the virus around, infecting masks with it so the rest of the NYC can be as joyfully happy as they are. Can the good vibes be stopped? Is there any reason – with the movie's sunny location shooting and sprightly DeVol soundtrack – why you'd want them to?

All of this, naturally, lends an enormous contemporary component to what was previously just a poorly-reviewed and commercially unsuccessful picture that's been seldom revisited since its original theatrical run. The “new wave” comedy hyjinks Seaton was looking for here don't result in a lot of genuine laughs, but the widescreen views of the city combined with a weird mix of old-school comedy and “mod” era tonal shifts makes it consistently interesting – be it in Seaton's occasionally goofy comedy involving the bird, Dom DeLuise as a would-be late '60s Fauci, and Moore attempting to break free of her small-screen image by essaying a counter-culture type.

I don't recall ever running into this movie over the years, but Kino Lorber's 2K master (2.35) looks great, filled with top detail and clarity. DeVol's soundtrack wouldn't be out of place in a “Brady Bunch” episode, while a pair of trailers and commentary from the reliable duo of Nathaniel Thompson and Howard S. Berger attempt to make sense of the film given our current circumstances. It's certainly interesting! (AVAILABLE 8/24)

[mkaroly]

WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? (1965). 3/10. At one point in my life I found this film to be really funny. It is a zany 60s sex comedy that, at the time, was insanely successful. Peter O'Toole is Michael, a successful fashion reporter living in Paris, who is irresistible to women...and he can't say 'no' even though he is in love with the beautiful Carol (Romy Schneider). She wants to get married but he doesn't. He is a patient of a sexually frustrated psychiatrist named Dr. Faussbender (Peter Sellers) and best friend to Victor (Woody Allen), who is in love with Carol. The film follows Michael's misadventures with several women (including Paula Prentiss, Ursula Andress, and Capucine) before he winds up proposing to and marrying Carol. More than anything else I can watch the film because it was Woody Allen's first real film - he wrote a screenplay but it got heavily rewritten. Although Allen hates this film (can't say that I blame him), there are several Allen-esque themes that can be found in this film which he would develop and use to great effect in his independent work beginning with TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. Watching it now I have to say that I find this film unfunny for the most part; none of the characters are very likeable (especially Michael), and the film goes in some weird directions, especially toward the end. Unlike ONE, TWO, THREE which holds up well for what it is and has a kind of timeless quality to it, this film doesn't hold up at all. It may have been super popular in 1965, but it is quite dated at this point and is more of a representation of the 60s sex comedy genre than anything else. I still enjoy Allen's scenes and his joke delivery; aside from a few bits here and there (the "lascivious adulterer" definition look-up is funny as is Prentiss' poetry), the movie has lost whatever charm it once had for me. The Kino Lorber Blu-Ray disc has no supplementals - just the movie.

[mkaroly]

WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935). 2/10. Aside from a twist in the story I didn't see coming (but maybe should have), I found this film uneventful and don't have much to say about it. The Werewolf comes off more as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde beast than a Wolf Man per say, and I didn't find the story all that engaging. To be fair, I am not a Wolf Man fan...although my least favorite Universal monster is the Invisible Man, the Wolf Man is not as creepy as the Mummy, or as evil as Dracula, or as tragic as Frankenstein. I will say that Universal's 1941 THE WOLF MAN improved on the lore, and Lon Chaney Jr.'s perfromance is far better and more moving than anyone's performance in WEREWOLF OF LONDON.

[mkaroly]

MAGICIAN: THE ASTONISIHING LIFE & WORK OF ORSON WELLES (2014). 6/10. This documentary on Welles covers his entire life in very quick fashion…too quick in my opinion. Welles was a larger-than-life figure, and no matter how you slice it a 94 minute documentary just leaves you wanting more information and more analysis. It plays like a Cliff Notes version of a longer, deeper, and more complex story. Most of the documentary consists of footage from interviews Welles did throughout his life in addition to more contemporary interviews interspersed with film footage and the like. There are also bits and pieces of footage from some of his lost work (including Don Quixote). There is not a whole lot of analysis of his film work; of course, CITIZEN KANE, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, and THE STRANGER get some extended coverage. The film paints a picture of Welles as the Godfather of independent filmmakers, which I think hits the mark. And Welles also comes across as a very happy person – it is mentioned in the documentary that Welles was never really bitter about how he was treated in Hollywood; rather, he just kept moving forward and tried to do his thing. Overall this documentary is a sentimental look back at the life and work of a beloved figure in cinema history; I just wish it is was a longer, more detailed documentary that took its time (like the recent PBS Hemmingway documentary) rather than speed by the peaks and valleys of his career. Watching this film resulted in my purchasing the Blu-Ray for CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, so I am looking forward to seeing that film. The Kino Lorber Blu-Ray has a trailer for this film and a ten minute-ish interview with the director for supplements.