What was the last film you watched?

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
I know people saying they won’t see it for that reason
I want to see it exactly for that reason.
It’s almost like you’re looking at these events through the eyes of the house itself
I wonder how that looks in a haunted house story.
Actually they could make it even more novel: let the action happen in the other room not shown on camera.
After all, HERE screams for the sequel THERE.
Part of the reason I put off watching this film all through October was that I'm not hugely fond of anthology films
I think it's difficult to make all the stories equally good, and the lesser successful parts stick out like a sore thumb even if those parts would be satisfying in isolation.
And then there's the challenge of making it all connect in a plotdriven or artistic way.
Nevertheless, there is something fascinating about the more extreme anthologies like Todd Haynes' Poison (1991).
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
16
 
Awards
44
The entire movie focuses on the living room of the house and from the exact same angle.
I want to see it exactly for that reason.

Same here. I'm quite intrigued by the idea, and I do like a good "confined space" setup.


And then there's the challenge of making it all connect in a plotdriven or artistic way.

This film did make an effort to do this at the end. The problem was it only included two of the three stories when wrapping up, so I was left feeling they hadn't crossed all the "t"s and dotted all the "i"s.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
Speaking of Bloody Valentine, I think I once nominated the 1981 film's theme song in one of the Music Top Tens.
It sounds oddly folksy pleasant for its subject, like some of the popular tragedy songs mostly made in the 1970s.
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
16
 
Awards
44
Gods and Monsters (1998)

iu



This was a last-minute "Plan B" film. I had Fight Club all ready to go but my partner flat out refused to watch it based on the visual imagery evoked by the title. I can understand and respect this since it's the reason I to had never wanted to watch, but I had a sudden desire to check it out after realising that Ed Norton is in it. Paired with Fincher and the fact that it seems a highly respected film, I was persuaded. Ah well, perhaps another time.

The upshot was that a compromise was reached and Gods and Monsters was it. It was a suggestion from Prime after adding Fight Club to my watch list - presumably off the back of it being another Academy Award winner of the same era.

I was in the position of watching this blind, since I knew almost nothing about it, I'm not familiar with James Whale (the film director - not to be mistaken for the radio presenter) and I only know his films by name reputation. This may have peeled away a layer or two of additional enjoyment for me, but was certainly no bar to investing in the story presented here. The people and pop culture referenced in the film could just as easily have been inventions for this film since it builds its world carefully and weaves real-life references in.

First impressions were fairly underwhelming. I felt it had a "made for TV" type of quality at times, a view reinforced quite early on in the running - during the scene where the vacuous squealing fanboy arrived to interview Whale - when a boom mic dipped into shot and stayed there for several seconds. For a few moments I thought this must be deliberate and waited patiently for the payoff, but came there none.

The three key actors give great performances. Ian McKellen gives good sleaze. Manipulative old predators getting unworldly young men into positions where they can be ogled, touched or otherwise objectified is, sadly, a very truthful archetype, familiar to anyone who has spent time at a gay social gathering or bar. I'm sure they still exist (the predators, that is. Gay bars I'm less sure about. Everything seems so fluid and open nowadays they might be surplus to requirements). Lynn Redgrave is a surprise here, and I suspect unrecognisable compared with other roles. Brendan Fraser is equally surprising. I immediately associate his name with George Of The Jungle, so it was good to discover he has some acting chops with a substantial performance (of course, I've since realised he's more recently been lauded for The Whale)

There's something of the mid-life crisis fantasy to this film, with Fraser's character the key fantasy figure, which comes across in every aspect of his relationship with Whale, from the handyman lured into close proximity to the emotional intimacy to the situation they share during their sittings to the towel-dropping scene where he's finally baring skin to Whale willingly (an uncomfortable scene since it seems almost to come from Stockholm Syndrome or a fascination with the glamorous life. And even more so since it escalates to a sexual assault and violence). This is contrasted nicely with his character's working class earthiness in scenes away from this world, drinking beers in the bar, engaging in laddish banter with his friends (one of whom is an ex-girlfriend he's trying unsuccessfully to get back into bed).

Helping keep the audience engaged are familiar names and faces. Elizabeth Taylor and Princess Margaret both show up at one event attended. And Pamela Salem - best known to me as a key member of The Firm in Eighties EastEnders - is Whale's mother in flashbacks.

I came away feeling unqualified to give any kind of verdict as to its greatness, other than to say I'm glad I watched.​
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
9
 
Awards
20
ALIEN: ROMULUS (2024)

ALIEN (1979) and ALIENS (1986) rank very high among my favorite films, but otherwise I have little use for the rest of the franchise; I think the other ALIEN / PROMETHEUS films range from forgettable to terrible. ROMULUS started out pretty solid, seemingly trying to combine the techniques of the first two films. This could have been an enjoyable if derivative movie, but the last third is a boring mess. Elements of all of the other movies were incorporated, leaving the film feeling less like a cohesive narrative than a patchwork of scenes lifted from other movies.
I watched this over the weekend and endorse your comments. They must have thought the quotes from the other movies were clever but it was overdone.
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
16
 
Awards
44
The Reef: Stalked (2022)

iu



The 2010 original is, to my mind, simply one of the best shark films ever made. Indeed, if Jaws wasn't so embedded in my top spot, I would view The Reef as the #1 film of its kind. Like the earlier croc film Black Water, from the same team, it turns any limitations into strength by giving a film based on simplicity with a small cast, a taut story based on real-life events, and realistic animal behaviour with no CGI or animatronics. It's also very Australian, which is no bad thing.

When it was released, I read a couple of comments about Stalked that suggested it didn't live up to the original, so I went in with expectations lowered. All the same, it's a very disappointing film for anyone who has seen the original.

The film suffers with major sequelitis. The subtlety and tension-building of the first film seems to be present at first (at least, once we're past the "Home and Away does domestic violence" stuff which takes up too much of the first half an hour). We spend some time feeling uncomfortable in the water, but without any sign of a shark. Then there's a little splash nearby, and by the time we look there's just a ripple on the surface. This is the kind of thing the first film did so well.

But once the protagonists begin to understand what's happening, all subtlety goes out of the window and it attempts to lean heavily into Hollywood popcorn fare: the White Shark pursuing them is huge and relentless and - unlike the original film which got into our heads by leaving questions about if there is indeed (still) a shark nearby - there are very few windows where it's not attacking or about to attack. They leave the shark on one side of the island, get into a boat on another side and as soon as they're on their way again, up pops the shark. We see far too much of it. As I remember, in The Reef, we only saw the shark from the characters' perspectives, which was genuinely creepy. In Stalked, we cut away to shots of the shark swimming nearby and are even treated to Jaws-type shark POV shots as it approaches them. The shark also helpfully waves its dorsal fin (which looks quite cardboard-y) again and again so we and the characters know where it is, which immediately removes any suspense. A few shots appear to use CGI, and it looks very poor indeed in these moments.

All of Andrew Traucki's animal attack films have a degree of soap opera tension: 2007's Black Water has the woman revealing to her sister (but not her husband) that she's pregnant; 2010's The Reef has the on again/off again couple (currently off again) ending up at sea together; 2020's Black Water: Abyss has that annoying love quadrangle, with the slutty woman pregnant. All of the films also feature a theme of female empowerment or women as "survivors" that - because they're something more than slasher films- feels like something more than the "final girl" trope.

Stalked takes these elements to a different level with an unmistakable "girl power" vibe. All the main cast is female. They land on an island inhabited solely by women (apart from one boy who is quickly forgotten when his sister becomes more important to the story). And this is where the "backstory" comes in, with the lead character suffering from post traumatic stress due to her sister's untimely murder one year earlier. This element works at times since her sister's drowning means that water triggers creatively shot flashbacks for her. And what better activity to overcome her aquaphobia than taking tiny kayaks out onto the open ocean for several days.

This means the only man with any kind of role in the story is violent, controlling and abusive. And the misandry doesn't stop there. We get all metaphorical with it, with the shark itself becoming a less-than-subtle symbol of the abusive predatory male forcing its unwanted attention on helpless females (don't point out that they're in its habitat attracting it by splashing and spearfishing, because that would be victim blaming) . We just know this shark is male, because the film all but tells us that a female one would be much more helpful and supportive. One of the characters even pointedly reminds us of the surfies' nickname for the Great White: "the man in the grey suit".

And with this theme in place, it's not enough to simply survive, which was enough of an objective for the 2010 film. In 2022 the oppressor must be cancelled. Which means Old Testament/Hollywood destruction. There are some stupid decisions taken during the course of the film, but the one that took the biscuit for me was when the protagonist refused to paddle the tiny boat any further and announced to her girlfriends they needed to kill the giant shark themselves (and sod the Great White's "vulnerable" status, I suppose. After all, anything Blake Lively can do...). What comes next is beyond ridiculous.

It's a decently acted film with lovely scenery and some very promising moments that ultimately ends up cannibalising itself with its pseudo-feminist message, like a gutted shark eating its own intestines. Forget this one and treat yourself to watching the original 2010 film.​
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
since her sister's drowning means that water triggers creatively shot flashbacks for her. And what better activity to overcome her aquaphobia than taking tiny kayaks out onto the open ocean for several days.
Characters looking for trouble, and then getting it, often looks like a cheap and unnecessary stress factor to me.
"A dangerous mission into space", "someone gets involved with the mafia" - and then everything "spirals out of control". I find it impossible to overlook the risks being taken in order to create a risky tone. It's kinda like putting the cart before the horse.
I will not watch this film.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
CHILD'S PLAY (1988)

A rewatch, therefore no surprises for me. Although...

It's a potpourri of horror genres that fails to deliver moments of suspense - except for one: the discovery of the batteries. A better written story could have ended on that moment.
The lightning/explosion scene at the beginning of the story is impressive but there's no way to understand or believe why Charles Lee Ray knows about possession voodoo spells. Perhaps that character introduction ended up on the cutting room floor.
Child character Andy is awful to watch because his naivity is exaggerated by having him speak as slowly and monotone as possible, like he's not 100% or something. A very adorable eighties TV kid, like little Danny in The Shining.
How they write for child actors is usually indicative of the quality of the story (be it film or TV) and Child's Play plays it very safe and doesn't waste any time.

There is the supernatural horror of the rampant killer doll (complete with facial expressions that makes it look very cartoony) and also the drama of a woman who realises that there may be something very wrong with her child.
Shades of The Exorcist when Andy quotes Chucky that (babysitter Maggie) "was a bitch who deserved to die".
It toys (no pun intended) with a lot of ideas but nothing gets really fleshed out. Chucky isn't only possessed by the spirit of the criminal but it's also given physical strength as it can only happen in cartoons.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to remember that it really is Charles Lee Ray doing all the bad things, which makes it all look rather pointless.

So I guess it was surprisingly bad.
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
16
 
Awards
44
Characters looking for trouble, and then getting it, often looks like a cheap and unnecessary stress factor to me.
"A dangerous mission into space", "someone gets involved with the mafia" - and then everything "spirals out of control". I find it impossible to overlook the risks being taken in order to create a risky tone. It's kinda like putting the cart before the horse.

Along these lines, as I watched this particular film one thought kept popping into my head that actually went a little way towards explaining at least some of the decisions, which was that - on film at least - people who live in coastal areas where there are potentially dangerous marine species appear to have a very different relationship with the ocean and those animals than, say, I would.

Simply put, if I were to visit Australia I doubt I could be persuaded to go into the water up to my ankles (and I wouldn't feel much safer on land given some of the reptiles and arachnids in some areas).

Of course, if you live somewhere, I'm sure you make a kind of peace with those risks up to a point. And it's probably a healthier perspective than my overkill approach. Especially since statistically I'd have more chance of being struck by lightning twice than being attacked by a shark. And I'm far more likely to be killed or injured in a motoring or household accident... both of which are risks I entertain daily.

But yes... there comes a point when it's less than wise, and a four foot kayak is nobody's idea of protection from even an average-sized shark giving you a good bump. Or even a friendly-but-short-sighted whale:




CHILD'S PLAY (1988)

So I guess it was surprisingly bad.

Oh - how interesting that yours was quite a different experience from my first watch a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps this is a sign that I should hold off on repeated viewings (not that I was planning any).
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
9
 
Awards
20
Encanto (2021)
Disney animated musical.
I had assumed that this was based on a folk tale but according to Wikipedia, it's an original story, so I'm doubly impressed. If I was younger I'm sure I'd be memorizing the songs (by Lin-Manuel Miranda) in the same way I did with Mary Poppins as kid, but sadly I'm too old to dwell on such things now. Too many others waiting for attention.
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
16
 
Awards
44
The Commuter (2018)

iu


One of my last minute, "click in without any foreknowledge" picks. I hadn't heard of this film until two minutes before I started watching, and as I began watching I didn't even know what genre this film was, much less the premise. It's a treat to be in the same position as the characters, not having a clue which way this story was going to go.

Just in case someone else wants the same experience, I won't say much about the story itself, other than to say it's nicely done. The performances are strong and with each stroke the writing convincingly paints the protagonist into a corner from which it's increasingly impossible to escape. It's fantastically tense, helped by the initial build-up which realistically captured the feeling of doing this everyday thing before it turns into a nightmare.

If the film has one failing, I felt a number of the action scenes could have been stronger, and some of the effects looked a little too obviously computer generated (I put this down to budget, but at $30m it cost more to make than I'd supposed), but the performances more than make up for any shortcomings here.

Reading up on it afterwards, I saw this was Liam Neeson's third collaboration with this director, and I immediately added one of their earlier films to my watchlist.​
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
16
 
Awards
44
[T]his was Liam Neeson's third collaboration with this director, and I immediately added one of their earlier films to my watchlist.

Striking whilst the iron is hot, last night I watched that very film...


Non-Stop (2014)

iu


It's funny watching this back-to-back with The Commuter because, apart from just a few little details, it's exactly the same story: Liam Neeson is the ex-cop with personal and family problems who, while trapped on public transport, is targeted by unseen sinister forces who begin knocking off fellow passengers, all the while framing Neeson's character to look increasingly unstable and responsible for the deaths, getting him into an impossible situation. There are even a number of the same crucial plot points involving things like seat changes and relationships with former colleagues.

While I realise the above paragraph could read as running the film down, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, stepping back afterwards, there's a clear formula to these films, but when watching none of this matters and I found myself invested in the story. It's also worth noting that this film was made some years before The Commuter, which makes it feel more original.

The cast is pretty solid. There are some familiar faces. Julianne Moore has a big role, which is always welcome. Having seen a few Corey Stoll films now, he seems to be an American Jason Statham, always playing this tightly wound alpha male (I even wondered if this was Jason Statham trying an American accent). Anyway, the arrogance levels are mercifully much lower here than in the Ant-Man films. I didn't place Anson Mount as I watched, but spent much of the film trying to work out why he was familiar (shameful as this is, my first association with his name is always Urban Legends: Final Cut, so it's always a bit of a shock to see him all middle-aged). I also initially wondered if Nancy the stewardess was played by Emily from Friends, as they had identical voices, but I quickly realised the actress here was much too young for this to be the case. My key distraction from actors came towards film's end when I realised the actor playing the geeky guy with glasses has an unpleasantly tremulous voice (I think it was played up to fit the character here, but curiosity got the better of me and I've watched a couple of interviews with the actor to confirm it wasn't completely put on).

The action scenes felt more robust and intense here than in (the later) The Commuter. Once again, one of two of the biggest moments had flashes of computer game imagery - which there's just no getting away from with non-practical effects - but once again the key focus is on character and so is driven by actors.

I'd certainly rewatch both films. They're a reminder that I need more Liam Neeson in my life, and I'm particularly keen to watch his other Jaume Collet-Serra pairings - Unknown and Run All Night whenever they become free to watch. In the meantime, I've added Jaume's Orphan to my watch list. His upcoming Carry-On also looks good, even if the name has comical associations to Brits of a certain age ("Oh, Mmmatronnn").​
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
9
 
Awards
20
Suffragette (2015)
Based on the "Votes For Women" movement of the early 20th century in the UK, but featuring a fictional protagonist.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996)

1732668139119.png

There are films that I've never watched and there are films I had decided not to watch.
Assuming it would be one of those buddy cop stories in the style of Lethal Weapon with super-funny dialogue like "maaaan, I'm too old for this sh*t!" I figured Mission: Impossible wasn't meant for me. And Tom Cruise was so extremely popular that people would have loved him in anything therefore I wasn't impressed by the popularity of this particular film.
I didn't know it was a remake of a classic TV series but I don't think it would have made any difference.

I don't remember how or when I found out but it appealed to me that Vanessa Redgrave played the villainess in this first M:I chapter.
It's only a supporting role and she doesn't act very villainous (as a character known for being bad she's kinda honest by default) but that doesn't make Mission: Impossible a less enjoyable experience.
It's basically a very good Bond film without James Bond, and even though Tom Cruise is the main star of the film it doesn't look like a Tom Cruise vehicle.
Very nice locations, great colours and lots of trickery and impostory. Glad I've watched it!

Followed by slick remakes of The Saint and The Thomas Crown Affair I wonder if Mission: Impossible had started a trend.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
TRAINSPOTTING (1996)

1732754602937.png

Another mid-nineties cult hit I had not watched before, and now that I have I think there's something about it I'm not "getting".
The protagonist narrator chooses heroin instead of "life, job, starter home, dental insurance etc etc", and I thought, well if that's your choice who am I to disagree?
After all, if you're going to use drugs then at least do it because you want it, including the consequences.

The story of these characters is very isolated, there's no connection with time, culture, scene, politics or environment (except for the comment that Scotland sucks) therefore I'm taking that choice to devote their lives to heroin at face value and that also means that this becomes a story without an issue.
Of course it's easy to see that chosing drugs is not a great choice but I think we already knew that in 1996.
What's left of the story is a string of sketches that (imo) can be watched in any order. The reaction to these characters and their actions is basically non-existent.

Ewan McGregor is very pleasant to look at even when his character looks sick but Ewen Bremner as Spud is funnier and more likeable.
Robert Carlyle plays a hyper-psycho who behaves rudely and violently and gets away with it. Can't say it looks vey entertaining.
There is a kind of smartness and soft-spokeness in this film that reminds me of A Clockwork Orange especially the James Bond geek played by Jonny Lee Miller.

The soundtrack is good but how could it not in 1996. Ice MC's "Think About The Way" is from 1994 (usually it annoys me when the cultural "sound" is not 100% perfect) however, a quick internet search showed a 1996 re-release with exclusive UK mixes. But they used the original 1994 version anyway.

Trainspotting stays very much on the surface and it's never outrageous or dark or funny or tragic enough. But again, it's very possible that something went completely over my head. The scenes are different enough to keep it interesting and overall I was mildly entertained.
There's some physical action that looks kinda painful even if I consider that we used to be bouncier 30 years ago.
1732758166630.png
1732758182259.png
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
Nevertheless....

T2 TRAINSPOTTING (2017)

1732767319648.png

I probably wouldn't have bothered with a '97 or '98 sequel, but a story that literally happens 20 years later proved to be a temptation I couldn't resist.
They might as well have called it Trainspotting XL because everything I felt was missing in the original (reason, for example) is delivered in spades by the older gang.
It is possible to watch T2 first because apart from a certain plot point it doesn't rely too heavily on nostalgia - although I didn't have to wait 20 years for it, so maybe there's a difference - and the story gives enough information about the situation and why it has become like that.

The nostalgia is actually addressed in conversation - "you're a tourist in your own youth" - and it made me think that youth doesn't exist until you no longer have it.
Bit of a paradox, come to think of it.
Spud's memoirs kinda make it look as if it was always meant to be these two films, the whole story, therefore I think it's more effective to watch the original first (as obvious as that may sound).
A few bits from the original are re-used but not to make it look better than it was.
Besides, the cinematography is fresh and exciting therefore these moments always come unexpectedly. There's a lot of clever mixing and editing that makes the film very pleasant to watch and worth revisiting (and that includes the '96 version that has unintentionally become "Part I").

 
Top